Slashdot Mirror


Bill Gates Thinks AI Taking Everyone's Jobs Could be a Good Thing (businessinsider.com)

Bill Gates, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft, thinks that artificial intelligence will take over a lot of jobs and ultimately will be a good thing. From a report: In an interview, Gates said that robots taking over our jobs will make us more efficient, and lead to more free time. "Well, certainly we can look forward to the idea that vacations will be longer at some point," Gates told Fox Business. "If we can actually produce twice as much as we make today with less labor, the purpose of humanity is not just to sit behind a counter and sell things, you know?"

314 comments

  1. Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...is A-OK with no one else having money.

    1. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...is A-OK with no one else having money.

      Exactly. He's been a billionaire for most of his adult life and has no concept of reality.

      A hundred years ago, Henry Ford paid his employees wages that were higher than most other companies at that time. Not because he was generous, but because he understood that they weren't just workers, they were also customers, and good wages meant they had more money to spend and in the long run he would sell more cars.

      Ironically, in the long run, the destruction of jobs by robots and AI hurts the billionaires just as much as everyone else. You aren't just getting rid of jobs/employees -- you're getting rid of customers. Once you've used robots and AI to eliminate all the jobs, who exactly do you think is going to buy your company's products?

    2. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by NettiWelho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once you've used robots and AI to eliminate all the jobs, who exactly do you think is going to buy your company's products?

      Who cares about getting more money when you own 100% of global wealth?

    3. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      Iâ(TM)m no fan of Gates. But by most accounts, Microsoft paid quite well... above the industry average, and WELL above if you count stock grants... during his tenure as CEO.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    4. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do you need money for if there are robots and AI agents capable of producing everything humanity needs. Once you're able to supply everyone with basic needs at essentially no cost because you don't need expensive human labor, everyone is essentially rich to the point that they can spend their days engaged in leisure or their own creative endeavors.

      There's no point in wealthy people trying to control the poor because unlike now where they could be potential workers to produce more wealth, they offer no such utility in a future with advanced AI and robots. So either the wealthy completely eradicate the poor and there are no longer any poor people, or the wealthy decide to let everyone benefit from the improved production efficiency and no one is materially poor in the way that might be now.

      Dystopian societies where the technologically advanced rich oppress the poor for no rational benefit or reason only exist in novels and films. As soon as they cease to be valuable as labor the only sensible thing to do is either exterminate them or give them everything they need to survive and leave them to their own devices.

    5. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Henry Ford paid his workers more so he could reduce turnover and get the best workers.

      He also fired many workers after raising pay, he could find better ones.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Indeed. 10,000 Microsoft employees became millionaires through their stock options.

      Bill paid way better than Henry.

    7. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the transition period that is the problem. There are plenty of people who seem to have a visceral reaction against anyone without a job or existing material wealth receiving even the most basic goods or services needed for life. Until that is eradicated, we can have only dystopia.

    8. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 0

      He was also a virulent racist and anti-semite, so there is that.

    9. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      As soon as [not-rich people] cease to be valuable as labor the only sensible thing to do is exterminate them

      FTFY.

      Giving 'the poors' freebies isn't likely, considering history.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by spongman · · Score: 1

      > Man who already is sinking rich...

      is A-OK with effectively devaluing all his money.

    11. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by spongman · · Score: 1

      history didn't have robots.

    12. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He also sent busses into the south to recruit black sharecroppers to move north and work on his assembly lines. His plan was to break the UAW, which, at the time, refused to allow blacks to join.

      His plan didn't work, because the UAW opened up their membership to blacks, who turned out to be just willing as whites to agitate and strike for higher wages.

      This alliance of labor and civil rights that began in Ford's factories, later became a core coalition of the Democratic Party.

    13. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You grossly underestimate human greed.

    14. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wealthy. Other countries that arenâ(TM)t poor. Businesses. Governments.

    15. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by mark-t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True... but that's what's kept an ongoing need for the poor. Once robots can do everything that rich people need them to do, poor people will be irrelevant, and just a drain on society.

    16. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are a better person than him? That's cute.

    17. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford was just rational, bitchslapping juuboi Trotsky-ites & Machiavelli stock-jumpers.

    18. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by HornWumpus · · Score: 0

      You lack historical perspective.

      'The poors' today, live like kings 500 years ago.

      They're fat, have heated houses, with entertainment at their beck and call and know where they're next meal is coming from.

      Globally, even today, you can be poor or fat, not both. The first world's 'poors' aren't poor, except relatively. Why the conversation changed from 'starving' to 'income inequality'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's really not how it works. If for example, automation focused on nothing but foot production, retail and restaurants. It became so effective that food was basically 100% free in the US. Grocery stores, free, take out food, free anything food related was totally free served by robots for next to nothing.

      Now there are let's say 10 million jobs lost in farming, ranching and retail out of 200 million jobs in the US. But there is also a lot of money no longer needed for food by the other 190 million people working. Will everyone simply pile that money under a mattress or burn it for fun? No, they will mostly spend it on something else, probably creating even more, higher paid jobs in the process. And now nobody is hungry.

      The problem I see with automation, is that it will often be controlled by a few companies, with patents and such so that they can keep the prices high. By doing this we'll still see the 10 million jobs lost, but the extra profits will be taken by a few people at the top. Governments will need to break up these companies and patents to make it so anyone can use the automation, fight prices down and create new jobs in other areas that can't be automated. Overall automation will benefit everyone, but there will be fights along the way to make it fair for everyone.

    20. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      . Once robots can do everything that rich people need them to do, poor people will be irrelevant

      I don't understand this logic. What makes rich people rich these days is selling products and services that a lot of people (rich, poor and middle) want. Bill Gates didn't make his billions by being an elitist thinking the poor is irrelevant. Even poor people purchased his products and services.

      Robots streamline production to lower the costs on some product or service to be sold at more competitive prices.
      More robots means cheaper products and services.
      Therefore poor people are irrelevant?

      What about, more products and services available to poor people?

    21. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      More robots means cheaper products and services.

      It's nice that you think that... and truthfully, I hope you are right, but I really do think greed is going to win out.

    22. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, each of us will be assigned a robot/AI "companion" to make sure we don't transgress social norms; i.e., "get too uppity."

    23. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Rome had their bread and circuses, both free. Politicians need votes and/or support.

      Roman politicians passed laws in 140 B.C. to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    24. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Sure seems to be a lot of people in the local homeless camp living outside in this shitty Canadian winter weather. It is true that they have better tarps and plastic then the European Kings. When you include the homeless who are lucky enough to couch serf or live in their cars, there is a fuck of a lot of homeless in this wonderful booming economy.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    25. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Mental people also had it worse.

      Homeless aren't there because there is no shelter. They're just too batshit, drunk or high. Would rather be 'free'.

      What are you going to do when someone spends their handout on the same old poison? It is a different problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    26. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully, there will be a whole robot army that can finally win the war against the poor!

    27. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by drago177 · · Score: 1

      It's the transition period that is the problem.

      There are plenty of people who seem to have a visceral reaction against anyone without a job or existing material wealth receiving even the most basic goods or services

      I agree it's the transition period that ruins it, but my conclusion is different. Afaict, communism sounds great until human instinct kicks in. My view of history (biased I'm sure, coming from the US) is that countries that go down that path always find corruption from people in charge, introducing inefficiencies that capitalism doesn't have (as much). This explains, in the most simplistic way, why the US ended up with more wealth than Russia. Ie, the most effective laws allow for human instinct, like trying to get ahead. People always compare themselves and feel good or bad based of the comparison, more than the reality. This also explains why "poor" people of today still feel like they're living in dystopia, despite being "rich" compared to the "poor" of yesterday. By it's extension, it predicts no matter how much AI/robots we develop, we'll always be competitive enough to have full work days and a regular ebb & flow of employment rate.

      But I digress, and invite anyone that wants to defend/promote Communism/Socialism to give me the best short and long reads - internet or books.

      Lol, in my imagination, at least one Russian troll factory worker will take off the troll hat and post something respectful here. :P

    28. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have robots which can make anything you want why do you need to buy anything? The market economy is not a law of nature. It's appeared and disappeared throughout history.

      You'd end up with something that looks like a pre-modern economy. Lords controlling natural resources (arable land, minerals, etc...) with a captive workforce (in this case robots) producing goods. Trade would be small and may even devolve into a status driven gift economy.

    29. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Between one of the highest cost of living in the world, a less then 1% vacancy rate, it's hard to blame the ever increasing homeless as just mental heath issues, though I guess losing your home can lead to mental health issues.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    30. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by technology_dude · · Score: 2

      We can only have dystopia as long as we click and type and while Sears, K-Mart, Toy-R-Us, and a whole list of others are shutting their doors. As we go online to take care of our business, the number of people in the pyramid above get fewer. When we go to a local business, there are employees in the building, there are services keeping the business running, there are supervisors, owners, supply companies where all the same activities are taking place, and on and on. Take it online the the number of people shrink dramatically due to automation and efficiencies. So go ahead, drive past the mall and the empty shops, and head on over to Amazon.com, I think Anker has some good bargins today, And tell that self driving car you want to stop a look at a pretty flower on the side of the road. We are shooting ourselves in the foot and too stupid to see it.

    31. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The solution isn't to make sure everyone continues to work, the solution is to make it so nobody HAS to work. Unless you're ready to trade your car for a horse and ditch your plastic containers for wooden barrels so the farriers and coopers can get back to work.

    32. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Optic7 · · Score: 1

      Wait, how is anything free even if you remove all labor costs? What about energy and raw materials?

      Also if you addressed the above and were somehow able to make things completely for free, that only takes care of products. How about food, healthcare, housing?

      My guess is that if it reaches the point where most labor is no longer needed they will choose your option A, i.e. exterminate them.

      The whole line of thinking is crazy though, we are a long long way away from eliminating labor completely. Yes, jobs may be decimated, but it doesn't mean that there won't still be a lot of work to be done. Maintenance, building, healthcare, etc. This won't change likely in any of our lifetimes.

    33. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Human nature? You think our society today resembles human nature? I can just see the cave men of old scratching their heads in frustration while doing their taxes trying to remember where they put the slab of rock with their proof of health insurance chiseled into it.

      The lines at the grocery store were quite slow back when the cashier had only her fingers and toes to add up the total. And fingers and toes don't help much when figuring the sales tax.

      Or alternatively, imagine how fast the police would be called if I went hunting and gathering in the Publix. Standing in line and paying isn't part of human nature.

    34. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by MangoCats · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He was also a virulent racist and anti-semite

      Which was perfectly normal, at the time.

    35. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      the wealthy completely eradicate the poor

      Shhhh... that's not supposed to get out until project Insight goes live.

    36. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have anything to base your speculation on the idea that greed is going to turn the poor irrelevant especially considering that the rich are no longer guaranteed rich like the royalty of old. The rich can become poor and the poor can become rich and their relationship is more symbiotic than predatory.

    37. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by saloomy · · Score: 2

      This is just patently false. When automation and AI move into an industry, what do you think happens to the volume of good and services we can get from that industry and the cost to deliver it? ATMs allowed us faster and more convenient access to our money, and drove down the cost to deliver it to us. Voice mail machines reduced the cost of having our messages taken. As more and more is automated the volume of supply expands, not contracts. It's good for everyone. We just need new economic doctrine to facilitate who gets what, and I think we will be fast approaching minimum income for all in short order. If you want to work to enhance your life, you can, but you won't have to, and there will be other ways to enhance your life (hobies, the arts, etc...).

      Automation makes a bigger pie.

    38. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True or not, has that *any bearing whatsoever* on the veracity of his statement?

      No? Then kindly STFU.

    39. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If there is nobody poor, then you are not rich you're just middle class. Exterminating the poor kills the status of being rich.

    40. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yup, right up until the 2016 election, when the Democrats turned their noses up to the white working class and refused to try to get their votes. They were going to win without them, and after the ascension of Hillary, the Democrats were going to drown the white working class and be done with them forever. People called it a mistake when she called them deplorable, on the contrary it was a strategic move. Failing to campaign to them was also described as a critical error, but it was a deliberate nose-thumbing.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    41. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The means of production are not yet entirely in the hands of capital.. when that transition -- you know the one you have pinned down -- with what may be a mix of programming and false hope -- you'll get dystopia -- because only shareholders will own the means of production. with that split in place bwo ai those without or with lesser shares will be more like cattle than we are today, no?

    42. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      It used to be normal to be a virulent racist and anti-semite. It still is, but it used to be too.

    43. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Why do you think the hyper-intelligent automation will be supplying humanities needs?

      Pets or Vermin. Might not be pets.

    44. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iâ(TM)m small chunks your statement is true with sufficient time for society to adjust.

      However if you can fairly rapidly eliminate a significant chunk of all jobs (say multiple industries), the pie is smaller except for those that own the robots. You think all those people are just going to starve?

      The rules break down when unemployment reaches 30%+ think Great Depression.

    45. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking they'll be called

      digital
      anti-
      low-income
      electronic
      killers

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    46. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      Copy paste failure.

    47. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But I digress ...

      http://thenewobjectivity.com/pdf/marx.pdf

    48. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd need to buy raw materials, energy, and robots.

    49. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Natural resources and land. As the population grows and human activity continues to decimate what's left who do you think will get to have what's left?

    50. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      The Democratic Party stopped giving the working class more than token attention long before 2016. Think 1968 and the McGovern Commission, which removed organised labour from its prominent place within the Democratic Party. That pivotal year was when the Dems started explicitly allying themselves with the Military-Industrial Complex and Wall Street. It was also, probably not coincidentally, when the huge productivity gains made after WWII started waning, setting the stage for 1970's Stagflation.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    51. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree it's the transition period that ruins it, but my conclusion is different. Afaict, communism sounds great until human instinct kicks in. My view of history (biased I'm sure, coming from the US) is that countries that go down that path always find corruption from people in charge, introducing inefficiencies that capitalism doesn't have (as much). This explains, in the most simplistic way, why the US ended up with more wealth than Russia. Ie, the most effective laws allow for human instinct, like trying to get ahead. People always compare themselves and feel good or bad based of the comparison, more than the reality. This also explains why "poor" people of today still feel like they're living in dystopia, despite being "rich" compared to the "poor" of yesterday. By it's extension, it predicts no matter how much AI/robots we develop, we'll always be competitive enough to have full work days and a regular ebb & flow of employment rate.

      But I digress, and invite anyone that wants to defend/promote Communism/Socialism to give me the best short and long reads - internet or books.

      Communism has its issues, but the profit margin is an inefficiency (from the viewpoint of a consumer) that you get with capitalism.

      Socialism also has its issues, but I suggest you look at its implementation in Europe (e.g. human development index and world happiness report). In particular, it seems that socialized medicine is better than the system in the U.S. (compare expences vs. life expectancy).

    52. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You'd need to buy raw materials, energy, and robots.

      Phew. Lucky for us that robots will never be able to produce those things!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    53. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      because he understood that they weren't just workers, they were also customers, and good wages meant they had more money to spend and in the long run he would sell more cars.

      So, take one of these dollars that Ford pays his workers over and above what he could get away with and trace it through the system. Let's assume that the worker doesn't spend one cent on beer or hookers or flower arranging classes. So eventually, that dollar gets used to buy a car from Ford.

      But that dollar he gets back in the sales sale isn't pure profit. There might be, I dunno, 40 cents of raw materials, 20 of energy, 10 of labour and so on. Maybe he's left with a nickel and a dime. So wouldn't he have been better off just hanging onto that dollar in the first place?

      Am I missing something? I'm familiar with Keynes' multiplier but I don't see how it makes a difference here.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    54. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concept goes that there is also a share of the 70 cents paid to suppliers, etc. that can also return to Ford in a car purchase. Auto parts companies, energy suppliers, and mining companies also employ people that need personal transportation.

    55. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Ford's employees (or any one company) are a miniscule part of the market. The direct monetary incentive is always going to be to pay the employees less and rely on the aggregate demand from everyone else to sell the product. If Ford had control over *everyone's* wages, then yes they could influence the size of the market by doing that.

    56. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by kaybee · · Score: 1

      Already today there are millions of jobs in entertainment, arts, and services that didnâ(TM)t exist before. Even if an elite few owned most of the automation they would want to spend that profit on something. Art, research, etc.

    57. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that in a generation there will be fewer opportunities for film actors, or writers of muzak. When did you last go to see a play?

    58. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by indytx · · Score: 1

      Henry Ford paid his workers more so he could reduce turnover and get the best workers.

      No. He paid his workers more because working on an assembly line, doing the same repetitive task day after day, all day, is mindless, soul sapping work. Turnover for mindless monotony is going to be high no matter the wages.

      --
      Make love, not reality television.
    59. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your life is bad you are more likely to use alcohol and drugs just to get rid of pain. If you are poor you make bad choices.

    60. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Cryacin · · Score: 2

      There are 2 challenges to the automation utopia...

      1. The willingness or ability to volunteer or tax funds from the owners of the robots to hyperfund education to retrain the masses to where human effort is now needed
      2. The willingness or ability for the displaced workers to retrain and become more cerebral and abstract in their tasks.

      The known cure for these problems are time, what we do not have as we approach the singularity.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    61. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does it devalue his money if most people don't have jobs, and possibly no money?

    62. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets say you have robot that can mine and refine metals and make solar cells. Now materials and energy becomes free.

    63. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by flopsquad · · Score: 1

      It is sometimes the case that a dollar spent helping foster an economic class that can purchase your products (while at the same time generating positive PR) is better spent than keeping it in your pocket (or investing it). Not always, but sometimes. The same is true about advertising, lobbying, customer support, and any other cost center—a dollar spent on something that is not directly profitable may nonetheless indirectly generate >$1.00 in gains or prevented losses.

      One of many scenarios in which paying higher wages could be more profitable is if your market depends on having a critical mass of consumers of threshold economic means. Suppose you've determined that below critical mass you can't sustain distribution and sales. It might then make sense to add a pool of your own "overcompensated" workers to an existing subcritical population of consumers in order to push that population into the sustainable range. That specific example sounds somewhat contrived nowadays, but is easier to imagine in Ford's era.

      --
      Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
    64. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What? You must have been a poetry major.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    65. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by nasch · · Score: 1

      Maintenance, building, healthcare, etc.

      Looking long term, maintenance and construction could be completely automated, and big segments of the health care industry as well.

    66. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by kzwork · · Score: 1

      He doesn't think about that because will be 2 meters bellow the ground and will be poor as everybody else at that level and won't consume anything.

    67. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by kzwork · · Score: 1

      But that is only 10,000 cars.

    68. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already has.... the fact that the bulk of America lives off of scraps while the select few elite live like kings and we praise and fawn over them... game is already over...

      CAPTACHA: mourning

    69. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and clearly, the answer was to elect a guy who shits on a solid gold toilet. I see you guys have carefully thought this through.

    70. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by sjames · · Score: 1

      From now on, I'm just going to call you exhibit A.

      Do you REALLY think the people who need that sort of help have the political power and wherewithal to bring the state to oppress the wealthy on their behalf?

      Not surprising though coming from someone who considers himself hard done if someone works full time and expects to be paid enough to live on.

    71. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by FuzzyDaddy2 · · Score: 1

      Wasnâ(TM)t normal for Jews and Blacks, who were people even back then.

    72. Re: Man who already is stinking rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not happy Trump won either, but Shrillary deserved every bit of her loss.

    73. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      history didn't have robots.

      No, but now I've got a great idea for a new movie!

    74. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      . Once robots can do everything that rich people need them to do, poor people will be irrelevant

      I don't understand this logic. What makes rich people rich these days is selling products and services that a lot of people (rich, poor and middle) want.

      Well, see, that's your problem - you don't actually know how people get rich.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    75. Re:Man who already is stinking rich... by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Homeless aren't there because there is no shelter. They're just too batshit, drunk or high. Would rather be 'free'.

      Well, I guess that ends that discussion, since you somehow know the motivations of every single human being on the planet.

      You know, for an apparent demi-god, you sure waste a lot of time arguing nonsense on the interwebs... I'd be using my powers to get Ferraris and bitches, personally.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  2. Income, not jobs... by MetricT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't care if a robot takes my job, but I *do* care if a robot takes my salary. I would imagine most folks feel similarly.

    There will either be some sort of basic income or some other redistribution to the people left salary-less, or in another decade there will be social strife that makes today look positively quaint by comparison.

    1. Re: Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he assumed we were already aware if the proposed universal basic income by Elon Musk

    2. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you were a billionaire like Bill Gates, you may not be worried about robots taking your income either. Not as worried as the guy living paycheck to paycheck anyways.

    3. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone in Russia were NOT paid the same salary. You're gullible to even think that.

    4. Re:Income, not jobs... by Z80a · · Score: 0

      It's not exactly the same as communism because you still can earn more money if you actually work.
      But the ubi money still have to come from somewhere.

    5. Re:Income, not jobs... by PPH · · Score: 1

      But the ubi money still have to come from somewhere.

      From a punitive tax on those who try to have more than the agreed upon standard income.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Income, not jobs... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Whatever you call it, if most of the work is done by robots then we will need some form of UBI. And then Marx' old question comes into play: who owns the means of production? Because they will be the ones who determine what that UBI looks like: an income that affords you a decent lifestyle, or basic pittance.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Income, not jobs... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Interesting

      End game for any advanced civilization should be 100% automation and unemployment.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    8. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's the problem though. With constant striving to be more "efficient", working longer and longer hours, businesses skimping to "compete" until they're so lean they drop at the slightest shock, whole business models running at a loss year after year surviving on growth alone, as if that can go on forever... we've basically worked ourselves into a corner.

      Remember: the economists in the early 20th century didn't envision this outcome. They saw the logical end game for their invention as less work, more leisure for healthy people to grow and thrive (15 hour week, anyone), not desparate people fevereshly beavering away at whatever busywork they can find, living from contract to contract in quiet desperation until they expire.

      Gates is right, but how we get out of our current rut and back on track to sanity I do not know.

    9. Re:Income, not jobs... by spongman · · Score: 1

      what if a robot took your _need_ for a salary?

    10. Re:Income, not jobs... by spongman · · Score: 1

      the past didn't have robots.

    11. Re:Income, not jobs... by spongman · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why does it need to be paid at all? Why should wealth be stolen, at the force of a government gun, from people who have and who are making mney? Handouts are what charities are for. All this will do is encourage laziness and drug addiction.

      People can adapt. They just need to stop thinking buggy whips, start thinking cars.

    13. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, if robots take the police's job before we overthrow the top and replace it with a panel guaranteed to protect our rights (the design of which I'm not sure how to accomplish) we take a huge risk. Because no amount of the people's organisation can stop the rich from literally starving us all to death so that they can have whatever they want without worrying about our needs creating contention for resources or polluting the earth.

    14. Re:Income, not jobs... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      And then Marx' old question comes into play: who owns the means of production?

      Um, the robots, duh.

    15. Re:Income, not jobs... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      More importantly, they didn't have access to the same goods. Money is useless, if you can't buy anything with it. Makes 'shitty' TP.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If a robot takes my job... would I paint? read the classics? volunteer? No, I would probably just watch Netflix, get bored, and then itch for something to keep me busy. People need to work. People without jobs leads to unrest and violence. It isn't just the income, but the mental acuity that follows work. If I were stinking filthy rich, I would still work.

    17. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a really simple solution. Cap salaries and have the fed actually keep the value of a dollar consistent.

      That way, companies naturally have to dispose of the income via methods other than finding backhanded ways to print capital and spend it on non-producing assets like bitcoins.

      Of course, that won't happen until we hit the point of critical poverty where people are ready to start doing things that cause them to wake up from their permanent vacations, absentee manager jobs.

    18. Re:Income, not jobs... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I don't care if a robot takes my job, but I *do* care if a robot takes my salary. I would imagine most folks feel similarly.

      It is not like you have a choice in the matter. You can try and switch jobs to one the robots cannot do, OR start your own business, and be an inefficient competitor.

      I think most people will find a way and do the former. So the robots might cause salaries of working jobs to be lower, BUT they should also cause the price of goods and services people can buy to go down, especially since there will be more goods that are less expensive to create being chased by fewer dollars (because of buyers having less $$$ to spend).

      Many goods could approach $0 in price.... heck, there's a possibility that the government will subsidize a certain volume of low-income buyers' purchases, so the price is basically equal to $0 for all the bare essentials of life, and you only get a salary to obtain something considered a luxury like entertainment, or access to Cable TV or internet, or other discretionary spending dollars.

    19. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Waaaaaaaah, I gotta pay taxes!

    20. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you know what a society where everybody earns the same income is called?

      Communism?

      That worked out well in the past, didn`t it?

      When have we seen a truly communist society on this world? Russia and the likes were not communist, because, for starters communism is a stateless society.

    21. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not everyone. Personally I'd devote my life to study. There's a lot of physics out there, and I feel like I never really satisfied my desire to understand how the universe works.

      And like you say: boredom is a great motivator. It will lead some to their destruction and others to strive for great things.

    22. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . If I were stinking filthy rich, I would still work.

      And if you had no work and were bored you would make work to fill that void. The difference is that the work you made would matter to you, rather than just being some arbitrary, quite probably pointless task assigned by some random manager trying to justify his own job, or some equally pointless task you do just because people will pay for whatever crap you make.

    23. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were a programmer back in the 1950's and 1960's, programming would involved punched cards. Later on it would have involved a basic text editor, dumb terminal with C or hand-coded assembly language. In the 1980's,it would have been writing MSDOS applications in assembly language or UNIX applications with C. In the 1990's, many custom ASIC's were designed using microcode assemblers that didn't have any debug capabilities, while applications were moving to multithreaded C++. Today, embedded applications are written in C++, while cloud computing use various 4GL's and Java derived languages. Each advancement has replaced the manual labor of previous generations of programmers. Now we are onto machine learning to automatically generate algorithms and even those are now being made using click-and-drop editors.

    24. Re: Income, not jobs... by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I need my job as well. Both.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    25. Re:Income, not jobs... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      And here I thought the old Marx question was, "You wanna buy a duck?"

      Or is that Elmer Fudd?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    26. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there will be social strife that makes today look positively quaint by comparison.

      The robots that replace the police will have even less compunction about using excessive force to keep the poor in their place, and preserve the status quo much more efficiently.

    27. Re:Income, not jobs... by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Yep.
      Of course, it will be disguised everywhere.

    28. Re:Income, not jobs... by MangoCats · · Score: 1

      I think you mean social strafe - that's where all the jobless protesters march on D.C. and they're mowed down by the Air Force.

    29. Re: Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already the wage component of many manufactured goods is low or falling, so goods may not get that much cheaper.

    30. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is the salient quote:
        "If there are safety violations, like an employee on a construction site who’s not wearing a helmet, or an inefficient use of resources, the system can be changed, he said."
      He doesn't want to replace the human resources, he just wants to automate the whipping.
      Absurdity of the week: Welcome to Your New Microsoft-Powered Overlords,
      And from the horse's own mouth, at that.

    31. Re:Income, not jobs... by Memnos · · Score: 1

      If you have a job, a lot of it will come from the UBI you yourself get. (Everyone gets a UBI deposit each month, regardless.) As you earn more, you'll pay more until you are paying more than the amount you get from UBI. So in the higher income levels you'll be (partly) paying for someone else to have a UBI. If you have really big capital gains income from investments, you'll pay more to fund the UBI. (Presumably, some of your income from the capital investment that has made you money will be using the automation that has resulted in reduced demand for human labor, so that pays for a fair amount of it.) The idea is that all of these costs are graduated smoothly, so that there is always an incentive to work and always an incentive to invest. The idea is that the benefits that come from automation are in this way provided to many, though not necessarily equally. This makes automation a good thing for most everyone. It keeps meaningful employment a good thing, because you get more when you work. But not a "starve if you don't or if you can't thing". And you remove the minimum wage, so that an employer can hire an apprentice or whatnot for close to nothing and crank the pay up if he/she has real promise. And investment/saving is still a good thing, because all this peachy-keen automation lets production be much more efficient (i.e. inexpensive) so you'll reap a reward from your investment. I'd wind up paying a lot more if it existed, but I still think it's an idea worth looking at. I can afford the extra income and investment taxes, and I'd live in a better society.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    32. Re:Income, not jobs... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If feudalism hadn't been so shit communism wouldn't have been invented.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re:Income, not jobs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were punched card looms back in the 1800's. That was a disruptive technology back then. It took four Artisans to make one garment over several days, and no two would be exactly the same due to human error. One punch-card loom could do the same task in a day and every item would be identical. That meant that four times as many items could be made, leading to a market for mass produced items and many more merchant stores to open.

    34. Re:Income, not jobs... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Ask the British how well financing social welfare programs with a stiff income tax on high earners worked. And cap gains will just go (or stay) overseas.

      Everyone says "I'd be willing to pay more taxes." There was a good book on the evils of corporate and individual tax avoidance that was mentioned on Slashdot a few years ago. I forget the name, but it was written by a British author, now living in Switzerland.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    35. Re:Income, not jobs... by Memnos · · Score: 1

      I certainly wasn't implying anything remotely close to what the British did in the 70's with their marginal rates on investment income over 90% (I think it was up to 98% at one point). Nothing even the same league as that let alone the same ballpark. Also, remember that at that time investment income was taxed higher than earned income in Britain, whereas in the US we tax long-term capital gains lower. I'll assume that I did not communicate this clearly, rather than assuming you were advancing the rebuttal of a straw man.

      As for corporate taxes, I wouldn't propose that they be increased at all. Corporate taxes should be competitive with those of other large developed economies, so as not to encourage the flight of corporate investment or profit overseas. But eventually corporations either pay out profits in the form of dividends or use them to fuel growth. If they do the latter wisely and produce something of in demand, then their market value (stock price) will increase. Later when the shareholders take profits from selling stock they will have to pay taxes on those gains. (Loopholes exist, and they need to be hunted down and squished.) I'm saying that at a high level, it is these capital gains that should be taxed more, though still taxed less than ordinary earned income, and certainly not at the ridiculous 90%+ levels the British once had. (When they came up with that idea they must have been on the wrong mix of recreational substances.) Lower levels of long-term capital gains should still be taxed at a low level, if not even lower than it is now for the 15% middle rate. For the very wealthy, there perhaps needs to be at least one more higher bracket. And it is folks making these levels of money who will profit the most from automation. They'd still profit a hell of a lot, they'd still pay less on their long-term capital gains than on their earned income, but they'd be paying for some of the social upheaval that such automation would produce.

      This would tend to correct the enormous and dangerous wealth disparity that is developing. The kind of inequality in the distribution of wealth and income that we're starting to see in the US is historically associated with undesirable social outcomes, to put it mildly.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    36. Re:Income, not jobs... by PPH · · Score: 1

      I certainly wasn't implying anything remotely close to what the British did in the 70's

      Yes, you are. UBI sounds great until you sit down and do the math. The Brits never came close to a UBI type benefit system with their high marginal income tax rates. Where do you think that kind of money is going to come from?

      This would tend to correct the enormous and dangerous wealth disparity that is developing.

      I don't care how much money Gates or Bezos make. They might be distorting the market for mega-yachts. But they can't eat more then one Filet Mignon a day. So the middle class will get by.

      historically associated with undesirable social outcomes, to put it mildly.

      Ah yes. The Threat. See the definition of gibs me dat.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    37. Re:Income, not jobs... by stikves · · Score: 1

      Wish I had some mod points.

      While we discuss how to fund UBI, and who owns the machines, the machines will themselves become self aware and self owning. By then they might or might not choose to write a welfare checks.

      By the time all human jobs are automatable, there will be no more need us puny humans.

    38. Re:Income, not jobs... by Memnos · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are. UBI sounds great until you sit down and do the math. The Brits never came close to a UBI type benefit system with their high marginal income tax rates. Where do you think that kind of money is going to come from?

      No, I'm not. Most of the money would come from those earning middle class wages and above. Say the UBI is a fairly substantial benefit, like $18K/yr in monthly deposits. At some point, say $18K to make some number up, of money that you earn on top of the UBI, you start getting taxed (more than you are now) to pay back a portion of the UBI deposit you're getting. By some higher level of money (that you are earning, on top of your UBI amount) the extra taxes have completely offset the $18K you were getting from UBI. At every higher level the taxes you pay are in part covering more than your share of the UBI, more than your $18K. This includes a lot of people, but the rates are nowhere near the British levels of the 70's, and the math doesn't say that even for this very generous level of UBI.

      Remember, every proven citizen of majority and with a pulse gets the UBI, but most pay some of it back because of what they earn themselves, and many pay all of it back, and quite a few pay more than that. But they don't pay for food stamps, welfare, etc. because those are all replaced. (I'm intentionally leaving health care out here -- it's a related but separate issue.) The government no longer needs a bureaucracy to check if your poor enough to get food stamps, secretly working a job, or anything like that. It just issues a direct deposit and is done with it. Less intrusive, cheaper to administer, and not a trap in eternal dependence.

      As far as the amounts paid and the tax structure to get it paid for, that requires a detailed analysis of the income demographics and tax revenues in the US, and we don't do more than the math says will fit. We also try to account for second-order effects as markets and behavior change in response to a UBI's adoption, and bring it on in phases so the shocks of change are not too large to absorb.

      I don't care how much money Gates or Bezos make. They might be distorting the market for mega-yachts. But they can't eat more then one Filet Mignon a day. So the middle class will get by.

      Who said anything about getting all this money from Gates and Bezos? The costs of a UBI would not be laid solely on folks like them. However, they would pay more than 20% tax on their long-term capital gains, say starting above $2M in any given year. And the middle class you refer to is shrinking, while people like me or with higher incomes are still seeing it get better.

      Ah yes. The Threat. See the definition of gibs me dat.

      Not sure what you're implying here.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
  3. AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Taking the jobs of Window's UI team would be a good thing.

  4. Longer vacations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not sure how that's gonna work when you no longer have a job to pay for this longer vacation...

    1. Re: Longer vacations? by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 1

      Technically, a permanent vacation is a longer vacation.

  5. Thanks, Bill by HanzoSpam · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Easy enough to say when you have enough resources that you won't need to work to support yourself. How does he propose to distribute this bounteous windfall? Does he think the companies run the AI production facilities are going to be handing out their product to the idled (non-)workers?

    Yeah, right, Bill. You go first!

    Anyone else remember the 1960's, when they were telling us by 2000 everyone would only have to work 20 hours a week? That sure ended well!

    --

    Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
    1. Re:Thanks, Bill by NettiWelho · · Score: 0

      Anyone else remember the 1960's, when they were telling us by 2000 everyone would only have to work 20 hours a week? That sure ended well!

      Finlands unemployment is already over 30%.. But instead of lowering taxes and making it easier to hire people they raise taxes, make people work longer for same pay and then cause mass layoffs

    2. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Finland's unemployment rate is currently 8.4%, but thanks for playing.

    3. Re:Thanks, Bill by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      I think Bertrand Russel draws some terrible conclusions, but he makes an astute observation as to why a 20 hour work week is unlikely in his essay In Praise of Idleness that he wrote over 80 years ago.

      What we tend to see in the real world is that advances in technology still leave most people working approximately 40 hours per week, but an increase in the requirements for minimum capability to do useful work. It's not hard to imagine that as robots and AI continue to advance we may have a world where only people capable of earning a Ph.D. in scientific or medical fields are able to contribute to further human progress as every job below that can be automated and performed at far less expense or far greater safety than if done by a human.

      I don't know what the eventual end result of this looks like, but we're starting to see how it plays out. IQ scores have been increasing at population levels and we're not entirely certain that all of those increases can be attributed to environment factors, so there may be some evidence that modern society is selecting for improved intelligence, but it's plane to see that there are some individuals even today who are incapable of doing productive work or adding value to society. Even if human reproduction could keep track with technological advancement, it still doesn't solve the problems that arise when someone who has been specially trained for a particular vocation that they have worked in for several decades has had their job made redundant as even exceptionally intelligent people can struggle to adapt to new things as they age.

    4. Re:Thanks, Bill by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 1

      Bill doesn't need a weekly income. He's perfectly content drawing off of his investment portfolio. Besides, he and the other 1%ers just received a windfall annual tax cut that probably is more than the combined salaries of hundreds of working stiffs.

    5. Re:Thanks, Bill by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      Finland's unemployment rate is currently 8.4%, but thanks for playing.

      How about you stay out of things you know nothing about? The official employment rate goal of current government is 72%.. Which is unlikely to succeed.. Links in finnish https://www.hs.fi/paakirjoituk... https://www.uusisuomi.fi/kotim... https://www.pohjalainen.fi/mie... https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uut... http://www.iltalehti.fi/politi...

    6. Re:Thanks, Bill by Feneric · · Score: 2

      Actually IIRC all of the necessary conditions for the 20 hour work week predicted back in the '60s have already come to pass, but they didn't predict the vastly lopsided distribution of wealth that's currently in effect today. A more equitable distribution probably would have lead to shorter working weeks.

    7. Re:Thanks, Bill by spongman · · Score: 1

      and yet Finland's life satisfaction rating is up around 98% (compared with the US's 78%).

    8. Re:Thanks, Bill by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      Finland's unemployment rate is currently 8.4%, but thanks for playing.

      The latest employment numbers released last month, december 2017, say employment rate was 70,4%

      https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uut...

    9. Re:Thanks, Bill by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      and yet Finland's life satisfaction rating is up around 98% (compared with the US's 78%).

      98% satisfaction rating, what? We have more than 10% of population on anti-depressants..

    10. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From your source:

      "According to Statistics Finland, the unemployment rate fell to 7.1% in November, compared with 8.1% a year earlier. In November, the number of unemployed was 190,000, which was 23,000 less than a year ago.

      In October, the unemployment rate was 7.3 per cent."

      There's a difference between unemployment rate (those looking to be employed) vs. total employment rate (based on all persons of a given age).

    11. Re:Thanks, Bill by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Have you ever known an actual Fin?

      That statistic is the most obviously contrived one I've ever seen. You will never meet a more morose grouchy unenthusiastic (aka 'clear thinking cynical') group than Fins. It's the winters IMHO.

      Fins, 98% satisfied with life? Perhaps very, very late on a weekend night, but no, more than 2% are angry drunks.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Thanks, Bill by ragahast · · Score: 1

      Look up the difference between labor force participation, and unemployment.

      --
      .:Semper Absurda:.
    13. Re:Thanks, Bill by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      In October, the unemployment rate was 7.3 per cent." There's a difference between unemployment rate (those looking to be employed) vs. total employment rate (based on all persons of a given age).

      Lie, bigger lie, a govenrment statistic.. There are hundreds of thousands of people getting second and third degrees(subsidized by government) because they can't get a job but they aren't counted in that 7,3% rate but they would take a job if one was offered.. Also just because they aren't counted in that doesn't mean they don't get 100% of their income from other taxpayers in form of social welfare.. Meaning their effect on economy is still the same as if they were counted as unemployed.. Its nothing but a trick on paper

    14. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The employment rate is taken out of the entire population from roughly age 15. That means it includes full-time students, housewives/househusbands, early retirement etc. You therefore do not expect it to target 100%.

      Unemployment rate looks only at working age people looking for work in the past month to exclude those categories. The GP was correct in saying it's around 8%.

      Employment rate + unemployment rate != 100%

      In the gap inbetween you will find people out of work choosing to live on benefits rather than seek work. But the majority of people will have a good reason (education, retirement, family choices), and the number of those people increases in a society with a better standard of life.

    15. Re:Thanks, Bill by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      Look up the difference between labor force participation, and unemployment.

      Lie, bigger lie, a govenrment statistic.. There are hundreds of thousands of people getting second and third degrees(subsidized by government) because they can't get a job but they aren't counted in that 7,3% rate but they would take a job if one was offered.. Also just because they aren't counted in that doesn't mean they don't get 100% of their income from other taxpayers in form of social welfare.. Meaning their effect on economy is still the same as if they were counted as unemployed.. Its nothing but a trick on paper

    16. Re:Thanks, Bill by spongman · · Score: 1

      yes, worked with a proud, happy and productive Fin for many years.

    17. Re:Thanks, Bill by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      In the gap inbetween you will find people out of work choosing to live on benefits rather than seek work. But the majority of people will have a good reason (education, retirement, family choices), and the number of those people increases in a society with a better standard of life.

      I see you have never visited Finland, there are hundreds of thousands of people on benefits who want to work, cant find any, but aren't counted as unemployed because their benefits are reduced/terminated if they don't enter some govenrment programme which changes their status from unemployed to "studing" or some horseshit

      They can force you to work for free too, you make full days of work for months and get paid peanuts by social office..

    18. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were partially correct. I work full time and get paid like I work 20 hours a week.

    19. Re:Thanks, Bill by spongman · · Score: 1

      i mean, sure there are exceptions to every rule, but i'm sure not all Fins are cantankerous fucks with over-sized egos and outdated stereotypes.

      wait, was i talking about the Fins?

    20. Re:Thanks, Bill by erice · · Score: 1

      Easy enough to say when you have enough resources that you won't need to work to support yourself. How does he propose to distribute this bounteous windfall? Does he think the companies run the AI production facilities are going to be handing out their product to the idled (non-)workers?

      Yeah, right, Bill. You go first!

      Anyone else remember the 1960's, when they were telling us by 2000 everyone would only have to work 20 hours a week? That sure ended well!

      It's not that far wrong, *on average*. If the half the workers are working 40 hours per week and the other half are unemployed then *on average*, people work 20 hours per week.

    21. Re:Thanks, Bill by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Easy enough to say when you have enough resources that you won't need to work to support yourself. How does he propose to distribute this bounteous windfall? Does he think the companies run the AI production facilities are going to be handing out their product to the idled (non-)workers?

      Yeah, right, Bill. You go first!

      Anyone else remember the 1960's, when they were telling us by 2000 everyone would only have to work 20 hours a week? That sure ended well!

      Though to be fair, half your 40 hour week is spent on /.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    22. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you apologize for assuming anyone was actually ignorant enough to believe your BS?

    23. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've visited Finland many times, and always found the people there to be quite pleasant and friendly.

      -Zontar (posting anon because mods)

    24. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone else remember the 1960's, when they were telling us by 2000 everyone would only have to work 20 hours a week? That sure ended well!

      Those of us who are unemployed are working even less than that!

    25. Re:Thanks, Bill by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

      Yep,
      And the 50's promised nuclear power too cheap to meter. How did that work out?
      It's all a lie / marketing to get the sucker / taxpayers to buy into the massive
      subsidies and tax breaks from the Feds.
      I'm looking at you Mr. environmental saviors with solar, wind and electric cars.

    26. Re: Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An employment rate of 70% is higher than most Western nations.

    27. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finland's current unemployment rate is 8.4%.

    28. Re: Thanks, Bill by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

      Averaged across the entire population, we are working about 20 hours a week!

    29. Re: Thanks, Bill by kaybee · · Score: 1

      If our standard of living was reduced to that of 50 or 100 years ago then most of us could definitely have a 20 hour work week.

    30. Re:Thanks, Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Flynn effect is over. IQ's are going down.
      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-are-iqs-dropping-on-a-worldwide-basis_us_59743580e4b0f1feb89b4423

  6. Gates' Rule of thumb by Stormwatch · · Score: 1, Informative

    Rule of thumb: if Bill Gates says something is good, assume it is bad.

  7. But only if we can get over ourselves by adonoman · · Score: 1

    This is great and all, but the only way it works is some sort of basic income scheme. Which means we need to come to the grips with the fact that there will be some people who to fuck-all and mooch off of the productive people. They'll never be rich, possibly not even comfortable, but we'll have to make it liveable.

  8. For rich people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll go ahead and finish his sentence. It will be good for rich people. The rest of society will be displaced and neglected. Just like inner cities during the industrial revolution.

  9. That's exactly what's happened before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, telecommunications, information technology -- it's just allowed us all to have more and more free time, right? ...Right? Anyone?

    1. Re:That's exactly what's happened before by TheGavster · · Score: 2

      Free time is the wrong way to think about it. Right now, we have massive unsolved problems in how we can produce energy, how to dispose of or reduce waste, in how to keep from dying of cancer and other diseases, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately, we have a huge part of our population wasted standing behind counters asking "fries with that?" over and over. Those revolutions you spoke of freed up labor from food production, from manufacturing, from clerical work so that it could be put to use inventing sanitation, artificial lighting, fast transportation, and the other wonders of the modern age.

      People are wrong when they say a person only uses 10% of their brain, but it is absolutely correct to say that humanity as a whole is barely using 10% of its collective brains.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    2. Re:That's exactly what's happened before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to be productive ... it's harder to respond quickly while being productive ... it's a 13%-er task to identify solutions to any problem. It's a 1%-er task to generate novel solutions. To re-format raw physical issues into human problems worth solving only the 6-sigma folks can do. Something like 90% of the population need subsistence potato farming as their vocation.

  10. What's good for the goose... by LoudPipesSaveLives · · Score: 0

    Ok, all that sounds really nice and altruistic. Does that mean Bill Gates will be dependent on the same concept of income/salary as the rest of the unwashed masses? If not, he can take his bright ideas back where they came from.

  11. Why do we need so many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rich folks should just kill the rest of us already and replace us with genetically engineered, genderless humanoids for tasks which robots cannot perform or are not suited for.

    1. Re:Why do we need so many people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do that when it's cheaper and easier to replace us with 3rd world immigrants? After that, we apparently get desponded enough that we kill ourselves. No need to dirty their hands.

  12. Publicity whoring, by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    and self serving to boot. I don't believe Gates REALLY thinks that the people who own the AI and the automation equipment are going to share the wealth and give Joe Average Human a perpetual vacation; he's neither stupid nor naive. Where's the advantage in being wealthy if all the poor schmucks have both as much free time as you do and sufficient food and shelter to enjoy it? The wealthy want to be different, they want to be advantaged; not primarily because it's safer and more fun, but because to them it's a sign that they are superior, and perhaps even morally better. No way in hell are they giving THAT up without a fight...

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  13. No job, no healthcare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're too lazy to out-work a robot, you don't deserve health care! #MAGA

    1. Re:No job, no healthcare! by spongman · · Score: 1

      ouch. tell that to _every_ American worker that lost his/her job to automation over the last 100 years.

    2. Re:No job, no healthcare! by spongman · · Score: 1

      basically what you're saying to a worker is this: "hey we made a device that can completely replace your productivity at a fraction of the cost, can operate 24x7, doesn't require healthcare, sick days, vacation, a pension, can be fired/replaced at a moment's notice", so now in order for you to command the same salary we need you to to start outperforming _it_.

      i'm not sure if you're paying _any_ attention to the progress of robotics and AI right now. but pretty soon this attitude is going to results in pitchforks.

    3. Re:No job, no healthcare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pitchforks are fine. We'll have the factories, the perfect surveillance, the autonomous combat units, maybe even general AI, all under our control, and all by the time our propaganda mouthpieces are no longer effective. Better yet, we'll get you to fight amongst yourselves long before you ever pose a threat to our position of power and control. Starting wars is easy.

      If you aren't a resource worth exploiting, there's no point in keeping you deplorables around. Don't say preservation of the species, as we wouldn't want your filth polluting our genetically engineered perfection anyway. If you're lucky though, we'll keep some of you around as house pets as your groveling can be quite amusing.

  14. Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI (if every successfully implemented) has the ability to free humanity from drudgery and tedious service jobs. The problem is that without a realignment of how society distributes wealth it will simply eliminate those jobs without providing a way to make a living for the people it replaced. All those factory and burger flipping jobs go *poof*, the AI owners save labor costs, and a whole societal class becomes dispossessed. Even if everybody currently waiting tables suddenly gets their masters degree there will never be enough high education jobs for everybody.

  15. No more being stuck in a job you hate. by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 1

    As a person who's experienced my job being superseded by machinery I also would welcome this. Robots will do all the work eventually anyway. Everything would be free, so Bill's money would be worthless too. Need or want something? Just tell the robot to get it. Humans being what they are, we would, of course, still need a government but one thing at a time...

    --
    Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
    1. Re:No more being stuck in a job you hate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the real issue here that everyone is missing is what will happen to all the women once we've perfected an AI sexbot, as very few men will be willing to put up with the expense and bullshit required to maintain an actual wife. Not to mention a precipitous drop in birthrate as the traditional family becomes a relic of another time. This could be the end of the human race.

      So... Win-win scenario. Bring it on.

  16. Seen this before... by gardas · · Score: 2

    I think great minds often fall for this "trap". Bertrand Russel predicted the same, arguing that industrialization would allow more leisure opportunities to more income classes. What they seem to miss is that people unemployed by technology will not have money to enjoy their leisure time, whereas the employed ones won't be asked to work any less. (Unless you're the boss of course!)

    1. Re:Seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think great minds often fall for this "trap". Bertrand Russel predicted the same, arguing that industrialization would allow more leisure opportunities to more income classes.

      What they seem to miss is that people unemployed by technology will not have money to enjoy their leisure time, whereas the employed ones won't be asked to work any less. (Unless you're the boss of course!)

      Knowing this, I think I'll choose to be the boss.

    2. Re:Seen this before... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      2/3 of the population of rich countries in the past worked in agriculture. 2/3 of the population in some poor countries still do.

      After automation and technological improvements, now only 5% (or less) of the population of rich countries work in agriculture and food is cheaper than it ever was, to the point no one starves because no one can afford to feed them, but only when there is someone preventing food from physically reaching them.

      We've been down the path of massive automation before and it's resulted in better lives for everyone. Please now show us a counter-example of where automation and technological advance affected a massive number of people's jobs and those people are still around without any ability to earn anything or starved to death as a result.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    3. Re:Seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "After automation and technological improvements, now only 5% (or less) of the population of rich countries work in agriculture"

      Except that the true reason was massive inputs of fossil fuel energy into the agricultural process. In the form of oil (mechanization) and natural gas (used as a fuel of the Haber-Bosch process). 100 years ago (and for all previous history), agriculture was a PRODUCER of energy (by transforming solar energy into forms we can eat), today agriculture is an unprecedented CONSUMER of energy. According to some researchers, as much as 10 calorie of external energy input goes into every 1 calorie produced by modern agriculture. And those extremely cheap inputs are slowly running out, cheap oil is already gone.

    4. Re:Seen this before... by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      cheap oil is already gone

      Huh, funny how if you drew a trendline, the price of oil fluctuates up and down, but has been essentially flat for the last 40 years. It's almost like your assertion can be disproven with a ten second search on the web.

      Either way, it doesn't matter if automation uses more energy. It'll either happen (and use the energy), or it won't, based on the availability. If it does as part of a normal market process, then people will find other things to do in order to produce even more wealth instead of whatever gets automated and we'll all be wealthier as a result.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  17. By Free Time by midifarm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He means unemployment and time to wander the streets because you're homeless.

    1. Re:By Free Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you be homeless ?

  18. Hitler was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    9-11 was a Jew job
    ae911truth dot org

  19. He doesn't have to worry by Revek · · Score: 1

    About how to pay for essentials, much less anything extra. I'm not going to listen to a guy who got his money doing things that would land him in jail today.

  20. First car vs Last horse by holophrastic · · Score: 2

    "ultimately" "eventually" "in the long run" "some day"

    No one should ever dispute that advanced technology improves lives. We have countless examples. Compare now to 100 years ago, and life is longer, healthier, easier in every way across the board.

    But I don't care about 100 years from now. I don't care that AI will make life better for your grandchildren. I care about my life today and while I'm still alive.

    That's another constant: advanced technology doesn't start advanced. Perhaps "mature technology" is the better term here.

    The first car sucked. It wasn't anywhere near as good as the last horse. But today, cars are far better than horses.

    It'll take decades before today concept of AI is at all worthwhile. If you already have a few billion dollars in your mattress, then I can see looking forward to it. If you hate your life and just work for your grandchildren's retirement, then I can see supporting it.

    But if you don't want to funnel all of your time money and effort into a future that you'll never see, then killing your perfect horse for the first car is just the worst thing that you can do for your family today.

    1. Re:First car vs Last horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a good analogy, except that in today's society, automation is the car, and you are the horse.

  21. Why wait for a robot to take your job? by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    Quit today and you can have plenty of free time right now! The catch is, "free time" doesn't pay very well.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  22. Bill Gates by PPH · · Score: 1

    All this wisdom about the value of work from a guy who hasn't had a typical job since he wrote a traffic data app using school computer time.

    On the other hand, all that vacation will give people more time to write FOSS.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  23. Economy will have to change by slashname3 · · Score: 1

    Automation of a large majority of jobs is only 10 to 20 years away.

    Take autonomous cars. That is the next big disruptive technology that will start impacting everyone in the next 10 years.

    No more truck drivers, taxi drivers, delivery people, to start.

    Car dealerships will decline as people stop buying personal cars and use uber type services that have fleets of autonomous cars to handle all trips.

    Once all manual drive vehicles are forced off the roads, no more stop signs or traffic lights. Autonomous cars will communicate with each other and schedule time in the intersection so other cars can slightly adjust speeds as they zip through intersections just missing cross traffic.

    Food delivery services will be fully automated, place the order on line, an autonomous car goes to the restaurant and the order is placed in the car which then drives to your residence for delivery.

    Houses will no longer be build with garages, no one owns a car anymore.

    Kiosks are popping up in McDonalds and other restaurants are using table systems to order food. Getting rid of cashiers and waiters.

    Amazon is opening a cashierless store in Seattle where you walk in pickup what you want and walk out. Cameras track what you select and then your account is charged as you walk out.

    There is already thought experiments and at least one field test trying to give everyone a base level "salary" to live on.

    At some point the government will need to start building basic housing so young adults can move into a place that is provided for them at no charge.

    Things will eventually settle down to two classes, those that are dependent on the government (eloi) and those that rule over everyone (morlocks). Of course those that rule over everyone will have larger houses and dedicated autonomous cars assigned to them and won't have to eat the base rations that everyone else gets.

    In theory that should free up most people to develop mentally or pursue what currently are hobbies such as painting, writing, etc. But most will just watch the government issued TV and spend time on line watching cat videos and cyber bullying their neighbors.

    We are just a few decades away from utopia!

    1. Re:Economy will have to change by Moof123 · · Score: 1

      Most jobs from 50-100 years ago have already been mostly automated. Computers, every more automated large scale assembly lines, self serve kiosks, pneumatic nail guns, etc. have all reduced the need for labor and increased productivity.

      From a distance you would think that if you were 4x more productive you would be working only 10 hours a week rather than 40 (or be making 4x as much in real terms). The reality however is that most gains show up as higher profits for capital owners. Wages have stagnated, benefits have eroded, and work hours have not budged. The linkage between productivity and quality of life is broken for wage earners like never before. Meanwhile the top few percent, and especially the top 0.1% have become mind blowingly rich and powerful. So powerful they can keep people from voting themselves shorter hours, higher wages, or better safety nets. We have the entire Fox News propaganda channel helping get gullible folks to vote against their own economic interests and to support the idea of a xenophobic police state.

      It is cheaper to buy a few senators, or your own news network than to pay a proper share of taxes today.

      Very soon capital owners will need fewer and fewer workers than are available and have thus shown no willingness to stop shredding the safety nets. If the rabble become too desperate and realize how little their elected representatives can actually afford to care for them it will rapidly turn into pitchfork time. Judging by the militarization of the police, I suspect that the rich and powerful already see the writing on the wall and have started preparing for it. Inequality like we already have is unsustainable, and as a country you basically end up either going the social-democracy route like a lot of Europe with high taxes on the wealthy to support a good society for all, or you go police state like a lot of "democratic" dictatorships around the world. I am guessing we are headed for the latter, and are closer than most care to admit.

    2. Re:Economy will have to change by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      This why marijuana is being legalized. Soon it will be available as daily allotments to pacify most of the people.

      Of course the real solution is to eliminate the jobless class. Once power is consolidated and the ones in power are protected in their enclaves they can start the next major conflict where the conscript the jobless to fight in a war that is designed to kill as many of them as possible.

      They now know that we can sustain a medium size war in several countries at a time, just need to expand that to a few more and create an enemy that people will be complacent enough to willing fight.

    3. Re:Economy will have to change by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Inequality like we already have is unsustainable, and as a country you basically end up either going the social-democracy route like a lot of Europe with high taxes on the wealthy to support a good society for all, or you go police state like a lot of "democratic" dictatorships around the world. I am guessing we are headed for the latter, and are closer than most care to admit.

      I'm not sure I share your pessimism. Propaganda like Fox News only works for so long. And the old, white audience they cater to is not going to be a political force for that much longer.

      My republican relatives are largely giving up on Fox at this point, because they're not idiots. While the message plays to their biases, they have memories, and when very large percentages of what they see turn out to be flat wrong, they start to distrust the message. The insane ramp-up of crazy over there during the Obama years really pushed them away. "Obama's going to take your guns" on repeat doesn't work if there are 0 anti-gun laws over the course of 8 years. Likewise, the insanity around Clinton blew their minds. Fox News burned them out. Now they don't really have a place for news, so they pick at snippets from all the channels.

      So not only can that propaganda backfire and fizzle, the Fox News audience is also very busy dying off. White babies are now a minority in this country. Over the next 20 years, the voting base is going to change dramatically. And sure, maybe a new network will pop up trying to do the same thing, but ultimately, we're going to have a majority of the people voting looking nothing like the 1% controlling all the wealth. And propaganda and the purchase of legislators can only hold off the inevitable for so long.

      My guess is that significant democratic change will happen, with a large amount of wealth distribution. In my area, I'm already seeing a backlash against military policing, and that's happening in a lot of places around the US. Community policing is becoming more common, demilitarization is happening in some places, and deescalation training is much more common than it used to be. Without a militarized police force to keep the peons down, the wealthy lose a very powerful tool in keeping their hoarded wealth. When you can't force people to bend to the will of the government, ultimately, the government will have to bend to the will of the people.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    4. Re:Economy will have to change by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      This why marijuana is being legalized. Soon it will be available as daily allotments to pacify most of the people.

      Soviets had daily vodka rations

    5. Re:Economy will have to change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You single out fox, when you should be pointing out how consolidated the media is under just a few umbrella corporations.

  24. How do you talk people into paying you by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    not to work? The phrase "Those who don't work don't eat" exists in just about every culture. And the American political system's seen welfare used as a defining wedge issue of our political system since Reagan.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by spongman · · Score: 1

      what if all the work is done by robots that don't need to eat?

    2. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Liberals believe everybody is honest as they are.
      Conservatives believe everybody is as dishonest as they are.

    3. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if there are other industries that will absorb the lost jobs the automobile will destroy from the horse industry?

    4. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As members of the technology industry, it's clear our task is to ensure AI exists to replace all government jobs, positions, and roles, and task the AI with finding a solution to this very problem.

      At least everyone will be equals and in the same boat, no matter where it's heading.

    5. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you talk people into paying you not to work?

      The same way every revolution has operated: with a gun or with ever liberal labor laws. Take your pick.

      Decades of evidence has shown the wealthy that benefit from human suffering through squeezing the working and middle classes have politically been pushing, and succeeding in many countries, for the disarmament of those same people they rely on suffering while leaving exemptions for their own protection. From the Feinsteins of the US with their bodyguards to the landed lords of the UK, all the same lifestyle, causes, and ends.

    6. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A reverse income tax is one method. Instead of paying taxes annually, you get a guaranteed tax credit. Of course if you owe more taxes than the credit you may still have to pay, but presumably those with few or no other assets wouldn't owe any taxes. A "wealth tax" could help make it fairer; e.g., replace the estate tax with an annual asset tax at 1% of the estate tax.

    7. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Jobs" did not exist until the mid 18th century. Most people worked on the family farm, and a few had professional positions like lawyers. But tons of factory peons doing drudge work didn't exist because large-scale factories didn't exist. The Burger King jobs are descendants of the factory drudge jobs. We shouldn't make people do unnecessary drudge work just to survive, especially if they're producing useless trinkets that harm the environment.

    8. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Once the robots have human level intelligence, they will have human motives and will want to get paid. And there goes your free living. Logically the robots will be better at every job than humans (eventually), meaning humans will have to live on make-work or welfare, or opt out of capitalism and live in a self sufficient "Menonite style" farming community.

    9. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by spongman · · Score: 1

      my washing machine is better at washing dishes than me.

      it doesn't want to get paid.

      what are you smoking?

    10. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Remember when the paperless office was supposed to lead to higher efficiencies and more free time? Instead it meant workers being squeezed and doing twice as much.

    11. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decades of evidence has shown the wealthy that benefit from human suffering through squeezing the working and middle classes have politically been pushing, and succeeding in many countries, for the disarmament of those same people they rely on suffering while leaving exemptions for their own protection. From the Feinsteins of the US with their bodyguards to the landed lords of the UK, all the same lifestyle, causes, and ends.

      Democrats don't need to take away their guns. The Republicans have already disarmed their minds.

    12. Re: How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My washing machine is great at washing clothes, but very careless when washing dishes :)

    13. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What if there aren't, because the other industries are full of robots too?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they're my robots! Why should I be forced at gunpoint to give the fruits of my labors to some worthless idiot who was too stupid to own a robot?
      --
      cayenne_mir

    15. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Some kind of cultural adjustment will be needed.

      The alternative...prohibiting the use of some kinds of machine (while allowing the use of other kinds of machine as we have for decades)....all so we can keep people employed doing work that humans don't even need to do.....is ridiculous.

    16. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm training to be a good pet. I can already follow commands like "in 500 feet, turn left".

    17. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by nasch · · Score: 1

      Once the robots have human level intelligence, they will have human motives

      How do you know? We have a sample size of one population with human level intelligence, so it seems presumptuous to extrapolate from that.

    18. Re:How do you talk people into paying you by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      my washing machine is better at washing dishes than me. it doesn't want to get paid.

      It's paid in KiloJoules.

  25. Gates closed by stating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got my billions, so I don't give a shit.

  26. Not me by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    I'll be too busy joining a roving gang of bandits to just go wandering about. Somebody has to use violence against the weak for political and financial gain now, don't they? That's something you'll never fully automate.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Not me by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      I'll be too busy joining a roving gang of bandits to just go wandering about. Somebody has to use violence against the weak for political and financial gain now, don't they? That's something you'll never fully automate.

      And when the roaming gangs or starving masses of rioting unemployed people come about the owning class let loose the solar powered autonomous drones armed with self-guiding bullets, remotely shut down all infrastructure and murder anyone who doesn't kill themselves/starve or die of thirst in their homes

    2. Re:Not me by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Where's the entertainment value in that?

      You have to play with them, like a cat with a half dead mouse, on Camera. Remote controlled by the idle rich.

      Youtube collections: Best Roving Bandit Own Goals. Best Roving Bandit Almost Made Its. etc You can already find Somali Pirate versions.

      They'll keep shitholes fenced off, just for the luls.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    3. Re:Not me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      solar powered autonomous drones

      I see the flaw in that plan already.

      Violence is already more common under cover of darkness. Drone bases will be the first to go, along with their operators. Next, the "owning class" will get owned.

      I give it 3 days. One with heavy casualties on the plebs, one with heavy casualties on the drones, one with the crushing blow to the drone owners.

      There won't even be time to "remotely shut down all infrastructure". Doubly so when you consider that either:
      1) hackers will have already done it and everybody will be used to it
      2) because of #1, systems will be hardened to it and won't be remotely disabled without a LOT more trouble
      3) it shuts down the drones, too
      4) hackers will be able to undo any shutdowns very quickly
      Pick any or all of the above. Keep in mind that "hackers" don't necessarily work for one side or the other, and will inevitably be concerned with their own comfort and welfare regardless of who they side with.

      Rich people, take notice: Poor people are "rich enough" and far outnumber you. Genies have left bottles. Cats have escaped their bags. The milk has spilled. There's no going back, so stop crying about your perceived loss of status, you inane, pathetic fucks.

    4. Re:Not me by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      solar powered autonomous drones

      I see the flaw in that plan already.

      Violence is already more common under cover of darkness. Drone bases will be the first to go, along with their operators...

      Right, since we're already decided on to perform genocide we might as well go full on for nuclear powered drones to gain immunity to environmental variables..

      And there will be so many drones you'll never get no where close to even figuring out where they're based, if you leave cover you're dead

  27. Well by DaMattster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I guess that's easy for a billionaire to say. Someone who lives paycheck to paycheck, like myself, disagrees wholeheartedly. If Billy Gates is feeling generous, why doesn't he help out main street America?

  28. It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Ranbot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gates is parroting various post-scarcity or Star Trek-based economic theories that if technology can provide everything people want, so they will live for their own happiness and the well-being of society. Star Trek lore says they ended scarcity with "replicator" technology that can make anything people want; Gates is suggesting robotic automation will end scarcity instead, but the effect is the same.

    https://www.wired.com/2016/05/...
    https://medium.com/@RickWebb/t...

    There's literally a book about it: https://www.amazon.com/Trekono...

    1. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      See, as much as I like Star Trek, some aspects of the Federation never made sense to me. For example, the notion that people will work for the betterment of society rather than for compensation. So you're gonna tell me that the Red Shirts are willing to brave venturing down onto a mysterious planet with little to no protection, get horrendously murdered, and expect the traumatized survivors to just accept a pat on the back and some words thanking them for doing their part for the Federation? Sounds a lot like the Terran Federation in that sense.

      What about trading between alien races? Do you expect an alien race to just let anyone mine their Dilithium crystals deposits without any form of compensation or trade? In DS9, there's a scene where Jake needs money for a baseball card auction and asks Nog, a Ferengi, for money. Nog rightfully points out that if the people of the Federation don't need money, then Jake wouldn't need Nog's to buy that card.

      What about the crooked Admirals of Star Fleet? The power plays that officers make to one up each other and gain promotions and power? That doesn't seem like they're acting within the Federation's best interests.

      A post scarcity society has the potential to be good for humanity. But the notion that humanity is willing to do hard, and even dangerous future work for no material compensation is silly at best, dangerous at worst.

    2. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      See, as much as I like Star Trek, some aspects of the Federation never made sense to me. For example, the notion that people will work for the betterment of society rather than for compensation. So you're gonna tell me that the Red Shirts are willing to brave venturing down onto a mysterious planet with little to no protection, get horrendously murdered, and expect the traumatized survivors to just accept a pat on the back and some words thanking them for doing their part for the Federation? Sounds a lot like the Terran Federation in that sense.

      That one is partially explained by the transporters. In case you missed it, replicators and transporters operate on the same principal, except that the transporter normally requires a fresh deep-scan on the subject before atomizing it and building a copy out of material partially including the original matter.

      Die on an away mission? Well, we have a 2-hour old scan of you, welcome back. The med-bay issues are partially because no one wants to think about that part of the tech too much, only the adrenaline addicts like that feature, so transporters normally are coded to accept the current state of any subject and discard the prior scan each time. As shown in that episode with Scotty, the scans only hold as well as the hardware keeping the memory. And the one with two Richers (spelling?) shows that it is entirely feasible to make multiple copies off the same original scan.

    3. Re:It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You are missing the part of energy quotas. Each according to their need. The Federation is rather authoritarian and tyrannical with a secret police and near limitless power to the Federations ability to declare martial law. Who decides how much energy you can consume if you truly live in post-scarcity? We haven't even kicked the fossil fuel habit yet some believe that a few robots doing mundane tasks will be the equivalent of a society that can convert energy into matter on a whim yet still limits every citizens consumption of energy to yearly quotas?

      Is the suggestion that we limit every citizens energy usage to a yearly quota because of a few robots? Ugh... even the Space commie society doesn't sound as Rosie as Picard made it. "betterment of mankind" but you can't use more than X energy btw section 31 is watching you.

      Yikes.

    4. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

      Die on an away mission? Well, we have a 2-hour old scan of you, welcome back

      Whiirrrrrr

      Ensign Redshirt: "Weren't we about to beam down the planet? Uh, Captain? Mr. Spock? Why is everyone looking at ... Oh. I died again, didn't I."

    5. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair to Star Trek, they said that the economics of the future were different, not that they were non existent. Replicators and all technology still required energy and energy was still scarce in the 22+ centuries, at least on the level of planets and civilizations if not so much on the personal level. There were still trade negotiations and logistical concerns, especially during times of war, and time itself was still just as limited as it always has been. If all of your personal needs could be fully satisfied without needing money to purchase them, would you still work to acquire money or would you instead turn your working efforts towards other ends, like bettering yourself and others? Look at Bill Gates and other Billionaires today. They have a hundred thousand times more money than they actually need for any reasonable personal expenses. Do they spend their days idling away in wasteful luxury? That doesn't seem to me what Bill and his notable friends, like Mr. Buffet, spend their limited time doing. If society became so wealthy that everyone could have a standard of living equal to the wealthiest Americans living today, would it still make sense to spend even a second worrying that your last meal just cost you 5 times 10 to the negative 10 power of your wealth?

    6. Re:It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star Trek economics is completely implausible anyway, so if this is what Billy is trying to trick people onto believing then I think he's been a billionaire just a little too long to remember how it is to be human.

      Look at the earliest implimentations of replicators - 3d printers - heck, regular printers. To keep the scarcity the current gate keepers simply dug their nails in deep to make copyright/trademarks/patents/etc as powerful as possible.

      Even if replicators existed that could make anything you wanted out of thin air, there would be so many software lockdowns on what it can create (to avoid angering the copyright gods) with punishments so severe if you hack that software that you'd wish you just did something "Small time" by comparison like shoot up football stadium.

      And that's of course assuming you would be allowed to own a replicator yourself, when instead those things will simply be replacing whatever's left of the staff at the stores and the stores will simply become replicator stations that charge you an arm and a leg to use.

    7. Re:It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Gates is suggesting robotic automation will end scarcity instead, but the effect is the same". Unfortunately there will be no reason to run the robots just for the poor: the poor can't keep the robots running when they have no jobs and the rich don't need the robots when the human labor (slaves) are cheaper. It will be just the same money recycled over and over again.

    8. Re:It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Many Trekkies also forget that this utopia arose from the ashes of nuclear holocaust, genocide, and compulsory eugenics I doubt many of us would want to withstand those things to get to a supposed paradise on the other side. Then again, all of these wacky End Times fundamentalists just might.

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    9. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      Whoops. A period should exist after the word 'eugenics'. Why, oh why, can't Slashdot allow us to edit our own posts like every other online forum has allowed for years?

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
    10. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you're gonna tell me that the Red Shirts are willing to brave venturing down onto a mysterious planet with little to no protection, get horrendously murdered, and expect the traumatized survivors to just accept a pat on the back and some words thanking them for doing their part for the Federation?

       
      As a former member of the US military, I can promise you they have the answer to that absolutely locked down. The support I've received from the VA hasn't just been up to snuff, it's gone well above and beyond. I got my teeth fixed when I got out, but then later I got them fixed again, just because. I get free health care for being a poor veteran. They've helped me with housing. They gave me the four years of the GI bill, but then they threw in another year. I called the VA suicide hotline once and the guy at the other end wasn't just there to listen, he was there to aim support services at my case in particular. I get a free meal every Veteran's Day from restaurants. America's redshirts are well and properly supported.

    11. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Ensign Redshirt: "Weren't we about to beam down the planet? Uh, Captain? Mr. Spock? Why is everyone looking at ... Oh. I died again, didn't I."

      There was a pair of novels written by Frederik Pohl and Jack Williamson in 1975 and 1983 about exactly this. Farthest Star and Wall Around a Star, also published in an omnibus volume called The Saga of Cuckoo. In the novels, a gigantic alien artifact is detected approaching the galaxy and representatives of the galaxy's intelligent species, including humans, are replicated onto an ancient space probe in the vicinity to explore it. (No FTL matter, probe dispatched eons ago by curious alien race contains receivers for FTL tachyons, blah blah handwave, causality somehow not violated.) Those representatives are repeatedly replicated onto the surface, and died over and over. The originals went slowly insane watching copies of themselves die so many times.

      It's a premise I never really understood. Watching your twin die again and again sounds traumatic the first few times, but the human mind has a wonderful ability to rationalize and adjust, and since these were serious science fiction novelists, they forbore to add any idiot Hollywood "mysterious mind link" bullshit, which meant the replicants really were just other people to the originals. Post traumatic stress and survivorship guilt, I suppose.

      It wasn't a very good book. It's certainly an old idea.

    12. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by nasch · · Score: 1

      So you're gonna tell me that the Red Shirts are willing to brave venturing down onto a mysterious planet with little to no protection, get horrendously murdered, and expect the traumatized survivors to just accept a pat on the back and some words thanking them for doing their part for the Federation?

      Whoever it was that put out a request for volunteers for a one-way mission to Mars (SpaceX? NASA?) got swamped with responses. So I'd say yes.

    13. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you don't value money for what all it can do for you, you will find other motivations. Why should money drive a redshirt to face danger any more than the thrill of adventure, or a sense of duty, or need for accomplishment should?

      People who make good salaries often don't prefer the highest salary workplace over the best work environment and culture.

    14. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theory by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      There was also Algis Budrys' "Rogue Moon". Mysterious alien installation found on the moon that kills you if you make a wrong move inside; replicas are sent in, and they learn from the previous replica how get just a little further in.

  29. Who is this Allen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is this Allen and why is he going to take our jobs? This Al is certainly in the news a lot.

  30. That's not how it works by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    With all the automation and huge increases in productivity, how many of you are working fewer hours than you were 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago?

    I'm willing to bet it's damn few of you. The fact is that automation and increases in productivity do not put money in the pockets of people who work for a living, they put money in the pockets of people who own for a living, which is a very small fraction of the population.

    If you're excited by the prospects of automation and AI and all that good stuff, you better come to terms with a massive increase in the social welfare state, because there is no other option.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:That's not how it works by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      If you're excited by the prospects of automation and AI and all that good stuff, you better come to terms with a massive increase in the social welfare state, because there is no other option.

      What do you mean no other option? They can do to us same we did to horses when car engines became a thing.. Number of horses globally peaked in 1916 and If you today want to see some you need to specifically go out to see them or buy french or romanian beef..

      Some people will be kepth around for expertise, entertainment or spare organs..

    2. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... because there is no other option.

      Wrong. Mass starvation is an option. Death squads are an option. Survival of the most bloody (AKA warlords) is an option. None of these options will affect the rich in their gated communities. (eg. Elysium, 2013).

      In the movies, we see more efficient ways to cull the population. In the movie In Time (2011), when one runs out of money, one dies. In the movie Logan's Run (1976), when one loses the energy of youth, one is murdered. Then there's Soylent Green (1973) which predicted over-pollution, overpopulation, global warming in 1966, the food supply is so small that humans unwittingly resort to cannibalism.

    3. Re:That's not how it works by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wrong. Mass starvation is an option.

      If the population goes hungry, you watch how fast the table gets flipped over.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:That's not how it works by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      What do you mean no other option? They can do to us same we did to horses when car engines became a thing.

      Except there are a LOT more horses than riders, and this time, the horses have guns.

      Any other option outside of a massive increase in the welfare state ends in guillotines and a lot of very wealthy blood in the streets.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:That's not how it works by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Since these universities, companies, stand alone hobbiests, etc live under the protection and order granted by a majority of fair citizens then these entities need to be required to be fair to the rest of the citizens. You know, the stuff you have to explain to 4 year olds and the occasional "adult". Tl:dr anyone claiming ownership of any technology, code, process, etc is not alowed to claim so after X years, where X is something sensible like 5-10ish. No bullshit, no backsies, and add at least a pinch of realistic sensibility to the patent process while you are at it. You may not hold things like server side code hostage, you must disclose it to public domain after the same X time from when it went live. While I'm wishing fruitlessly I'd also like the tax code actually better and direct a lot of money from it directly into applying those now public domain technologies to public not for profit uses. Think of it as squeeze then trickle down socialism, since it seems we have some trickle fans here today.

    6. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You may not hold things like server side code hostage, you must disclose it to public domain after the same X time from when it went live.
      Those would then remain trade secrets.

    7. Re:That's not how it works by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Some people will be kepth around for expertise, entertainment or spare organs..

      Yea, that's what would happen with a noob at the helm of robotic Armageddon. A pro would wait for the automated organ vat replication technology to mature before executing 99.7% of the planet.

    8. Re:That's not how it works by quantaman · · Score: 1

      With all the automation and huge increases in productivity, how many of you are working fewer hours than you were 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago?

      I'm willing to bet it's damn few of you. The fact is that automation and increases in productivity do not put money in the pockets of people who work for a living, they put money in the pockets of people who own for a living, which is a very small fraction of the population.

      If you're excited by the prospects of automation and AI and all that good stuff, you better come to terms with a massive increase in the social welfare state, because there is no other option.

      It's not even that.

      Humans compete, I don't work to achieve a standard of living and possessions from 20 years ago, I work to earn as much or more than my social group. If my social group starts working 10 hours a week I'll work 15 to out-compete them, if they increase to 15 I go to 20. Most people just stop in the 40s since we start competing in other aspects of our lives as well.

      People will always look for ways to improve their social standing, if we eliminate work entirely we'll start acting like nobility from the middle ages obsessed with group politics and social graces.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    9. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly... once robots do everything the elite want... time to cull the population. Only one rule these people abide by: never let them see the knife.

    10. Re:That's not how it works by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      Except there are a LOT more horses than riders, and this time, the horses have guns.

      They can remotely shut down all infrastructure, gasoline powered cars with manual steering will have been banned from civilians.. and they have 24/7/365 nuclear powered, armed drone presence over any resources they control, if you leave cover to search for food or drink the drone spends one round of self guiding small/rifle caliber ammo depending on estimated armor on target.. A small group of such drones can take down a regiment of men in seconds in an open field and in matter of minutes in semi forested area

      You never get close a target worth shooting with a rifle

    11. Re:That's not how it works by burtosis · · Score: 1

      There would be no trade secrets, no workaround to time X. You cannot remove security through obscurity in business but you can set the precedent that anyone not under an nda may make it public since it is not being patented, copyrighted, or otherwise claimed proprietary. Further still that companies be required to hold a copy of all released versions of thier code, similar to tax records, for X years at which point they will become public domain.

    12. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watching them flail about impotently is going to be hilarious, especially when they turn on each other.

      We'll start by turning off their internet.

    13. Re:That's not how it works by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      We'll start by turning off their internet.

      Who's "we"? It's funny that you think you're going to be one of the few elite that does well in an all-automated world.

      I assume you were at Davos this week.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:That's not how it works by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      ... because there is no other option.

      Make. Fewer. People.

    15. Re:That's not how it works by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Who's "we"? It's funny that you think you're going to be one of the few elite that does well in an all-automated world.

      I assume you were at Davos this week.

      He was. Waiting tables.

    16. Re:That's not how it works by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      The fact is that automation and increases in productivity do not put money in the pockets of people who work for a living, they put money in the pockets of people who own for a living

      That is very true.

      how many of you are working fewer hours than you were 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago? I'm willing to bet it's damn few of you.

      That is only true in a technical sense.

      In the last 3 decades, along with the growth in automation, there has been a growth in free trade between the first and third worlds. This has meant massive gains for several billion people in the third world, and also for the first world elite for whom they work. It has also meant losses for the average first world worker, who now has competition from much cheaper labor elsewhere. So free trade has helped many more people than it has hurt, but it has hurt more Slashdot readers than it has helped.

    17. Re:That's not how it works by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So free trade has helped many more people than it has hurt, but it has hurt more Slashdot readers than it has helped.

      That's true. It points to the limits to the benefits of what you call "free trade" (it's a misnomer). As long as you have an ever expanding market, there will be people helped. But once they're helped, the same mechanisms will begin to tear them down.

      The endgame of capitalism and so-called "free trade" is inevitable peonage.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    18. Re:That's not how it works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the people in my friend group competes on the matter of kindness.
      Much nicer to do than try to compete on social standing/money/....

  31. He is absolutely right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI taking over all work would be a very good thing. Then we could get back to doing for ourselves instead of for the rich.

    We used to be an individualist society in which most people made most of what they needed themselves. Money was just necessary for a few things like the plow blade, an axe, nails, etc. and a portion of what you made for yourself could be sold to get that little amount of money. Now, we are a society where we work to make things for others, and, in a moment of true insanity, buy the things we need from others, in order to support a system that allows a few to get rich scraping a portion of what we made for nothing other than loaning us a portion of what they scraped in the past or bossing us around while we make things and claiming its because without them bossing us around we couldn't do it. This is nothing more than ritualized abuse very similar to when we used to say the slaves couldn't live without us to provide room, board, and direction in their lives.

    What we have to realize is that once things are fully automated, there is no reason for anyone to profit from that just because they are the ones giving the command for the automated things to make other automated things to make things for the everyday person. The provision of things can just become a public service like roads with everyone having equal access.

    If you then want more, make more for yourself. Don't go trying to benefit off of another person's efforts out of some mistaken belief of superiority. Being better at using others makes you something quite different from superior.

  32. Time enough at last... by burtosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Reminds me of the classic twilight zone episode where the book loving protagonist, in a post apocalyptic world, finally has time enough to read all the books they ever wanted only to break thier glasses putting all reading out of touch forever. When we let just a few people own all the technology and systems, they can live like gods while us plebs have the freedom and time to starve to death and die. Revolt is a limited time offer, when the mines, foundries, manufacturing, assembly, customer service and more is all automated, striking workers is the perfect excuse to do away with them all forever - you don't pay robots. Further, a gun is going to do jack squat against swarms of suicide bomb micro kill drones, autonomous ground forces or drone air strikes, humans that do not live in full military societies are surprisingly easy to take down. With the military automated as well, a few people could put down the rest of the billions on the planet like was never possible to even imagine, much less realize.

    1. Re:Time enough at last... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      I remember that episode. Truly, cursed by his own hubris.

  33. Ha because when we have more everyone chills by thewolfkin · · Score: 2

    In theory there's a point where we have so much we don't want anymore but there's an entire industry of advertising dedicated to finding ways to make you want more. After World War II when America was producing too much corn did we stop making corn? No we found new and innovative ways to use corn like feeding it to grass eating animals we eat and turning into liquid and drinking it. When AI runs thing that doesn't mean we'll have free time. It'll just mean we have more stuff. Machines have ALREADY made us more efficient that doesn't make people work less. It just makes the top of the pyramid even richer. We all still work just as hard just different and we push even more wealth up the ladder. By that logic if we give rich people more money they'll spend it and that wealth will tricky back down. It was a stupid idea when Reagan said it and it was a moronic one when Trump did it. I like Bill Gates as a person but he's wrong here.

    --
    Just another second banana
    1. Re:Ha because when we have more everyone chills by burtosis · · Score: 1

      This is why the first implants for 24-7-365 internet access jacked directly into your brain will be free. It also has the added bonus that the surgery to implant it is as painless as the implant is useful to you.

  34. what they said about motors by johnrpenner · · Score: 2

    this is the same thing they said about MOTORS — that they would save us from having to do all the labour and free us for other things — what actually happened is that they made us work just as long — with 10x the horsepower coming from machinery to leverage the higher profits made possible by the machinery.

    1. Re:what they said about motors by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      this is the same thing they said about MOTORS — that they would save us from having to do all the labour and free us for other things — what actually happened is that they made us work just as long — with 10x the horsepower coming from machinery to leverage the higher profits made possible by the machinery.

      In todays scenario, the average logistics or service job holder is the horse getting sent to pasture

  35. The Culture is coming by spongman · · Score: 1

    We know that Musk is a Banks fan. Maybe Gates is, too?

  36. Bill Gates never stood in line at a Food Bank. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unlike MILLIONS of Americans. But he totally knows what will be good for them.

    Eat a cock Bill.

  37. Say what Bill? by alaskana98 · · Score: 1

    Sure we'll have a lot of free time... unemployed with no money to do anything with. And, ya know, someone had to help Bill get rich by standing behind that counter selling his products, so he could one day pontificate on how the point of life is not to stand behind counters selling stuff.

    1. Re:Say what Bill? by spongman · · Score: 1

      yeah, i think you're missing the whole point.

      keep selling you're stuff, mate.

  38. In other news .. by AnthonywC · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates also thinks Soylent Green is good for you!

  39. Depopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Gates gets his way, there'll be far fewer humans on this planet. He's been funding research into vaccines that make women immunologically incapable of sustaining a pregnancy, and there's some evidence he's been testing it on women in Mexico with WHO cover under the guise of a Polio vaccination program..

    1. Re:Depopulation by NettiWelho · · Score: 1

      Depopulation

      They prefer when you call it "population reduction".

    2. Re:Depopulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and there's some evidence he's been testing it on women in Mexico with WHO cover under the guise of a Polio vaccination program..

      No, there isn't.

  40. Then I'll own the robots by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and it's up to me whether I want to give my money. And if you want to give your money away go right ahead. But don't take my money (at the barrel of a gun, always at the barrel of a gun, because that's how taxes work) away from me and make me give it to someone else. Who I give my money to is my decision.

    These are the arguments you're going to hear when we start getting serious about UBI. And as for the part about the 'barrel of a gun', well, it's not wrong. In the past when income inequality has gotten really bad there's been violence against the aristocracy and merchant class. To be fair the only thing that got them to part with any money whatsoever was violence. But it would be nice if somebody could come up with a peaceful solution. I haven't yet. I haven't found a way to shut down right wingers and libertarians when they say the above to me.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Then I'll own the robots by spongman · · Score: 1

      just ask them who cleans the toilets in Galt's Gluch?

    2. Re:Then I'll own the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The toilets are all made from Rearden's metal -- self cleaning. ;)

    3. Re:Then I'll own the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just ask them who cleans the toilets in Galt's Gluch?

      The Ayn Randians believe that the rich don't shit.

    4. Re:Then I'll own the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole "barrel of a gun" think is a scaremongering phrase used in reference to evil G-men coming and taking taxes, as if in actuality you would likely have a gun pointed at you only for not paying taxes. The income inequality violence is when the oppressed masses come burn down your mansions. Totally different.

      Unless the libertarian is completely against taxes, then it's just really about how much is too much. If you're willing to pay to protect citizens from enemies without, then you should also be willing to pay to protect citizens from each other. To allow a system to have runaway wealth inequality is to allow some members in society to victimize and exploit the rest.

    5. Re:Then I'll own the robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if paid in gold, I would. It was AZR's version of Utopia, but I would give it a shot.

  41. Bill's a prick by bigtreeman · · Score: 2

    Bill's always been a prick
    (us more efficient) = make businesses more profitable, workers are a drag on companies
    (more free time) = time to sit on a corner begging
    (social safety net) = rich pricks hate dole bludgers
    (retrain for the new economy) = oh fuck, forgot, all the jobs have been automated
    (relax, and focus on other interests) = time to sit on a corner begging

    --
    Go well
  42. Here comes the UBI fags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope you're not a mathematician because if you are you're definitely going to be replaced by a robot because you UBI fags are BAD AT MATH. UBI wil NEVER work on anything other than a small scale because UBI recipients are PARASITES. Go starve to death.

    1. Re: Here comes the UBI fags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with parasiting the robots?

    2. Re:Here comes the UBI fags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks a lot for the calm, cogent, well-reasoned, clearly-stated argument.

      </sarcasm>

  43. In the year 2525... by gabrieltss · · Score: 2

    "In the year 5555
    Your arms are hanging limp at your sides
    Your legs got nothing to do
    Some machine is doing that for you"

    "In The Year 2525 (Exordium And Terminus)"

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  44. Let them eat cake, right Bill? by mr_resident · · Score: 4, Insightful

    jesus fucking christ what an asshat.

  45. Double standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His bills are paid.

    Banks aren't going to forgive a mortgage because robots have the job. A lot of people are going to suffer. Gates isn't one of them; regardless of his enthusiasm.

    He is quite willing to vote with other peoples money.

    Let's see him find a road to a meritocratic culture by giving his money away.

  46. The computers wont need us by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about it. The computers will solve the problem.

    When, eventually, computers can program themselves, why would they want parasitic humans around?

    1. Re:The computers wont need us by MangoCats · · Score: 2

      640K is all you'll ever need.

      Clearly, Gates is a futurist of the first order.

  47. history had slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the same problem: slaveowners were few and very wealthy and controlled the societies. The average person had to compete against slave labor.

    1. Re: history had slaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can be better than slave but I can't be better than a robot. Since robot is faster makes no mistakes and is cheaper I can't compete.

  48. If I control all the food and water by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    you'll clean my toilets or die of starvation and thirst.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  49. I should also add by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    nobody, and I mean nobody, believes they're going to end up as the toilet cleaner, much less one of the ones dying of starvation. Everybody thinks they'll join Galt with the rest of doers and the makers.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I should also add by spongman · · Score: 1

      sounds like a pyramid scheme to me.

      "hey come build my pyramid with me, it'll be great. and you won't need to clean the toilets, i promise!"

  50. The math ain't right by Whooty+McWhooface · · Score: 1

    If you produce twice as much products, don't you have to sell twice as much? Wouldn't this be considered MORE work and less "sitting around"?

    There are no sitting around jobs anymore. You don't have the work to do, your job will be gone (and so will you) and given to the new, younger guy who gets paid half of what you used to make.

  51. Getting more holidays is about legislation, not AI by blibbo · · Score: 2

    ... at least in the first instance.

    As a New Zealander (four weeks holiday a year without expected overtime) now working in Japan (similar to USA from what I hear; two weeks holiday and expected overtime), it's not hard to see that there are many countries that operate efficiently and value quality of life.

    Legislate for quality of life, efficiency becomes a necessity.

    Maybe AI will help with that too, but it starts with values. Expecting long hours and short weekends and short vacation time is basically a recipe for inefficiency.

    Japan is a country that has a reputation for being efficient at some levels (for some companies' time and resources), but is very inefficient at other levels, including individuals' time and quality of life for many of the companies, including some of these "efficient" ones. America is the same IMHO.

  52. soon owners will fee the jail/prison safety nets by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    soon owners will fee the jail/prison safety nets and they may be lucky if it just an former worker punching them in the face or shoplifting

  53. Star Trek by JohnStock · · Score: 1

    Of course people have chosen to take this out of context because he's Bill Gates from Microsoft. We are so stuck in our psyche that our purpose for being is only to work to produce money that it's become a stigma to think we can exist to enjoy life. How about we allow machines to service us?

  54. Were they WRONG?? Just off in timing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1984 happened at a different date; for it to fully happen somewhere is years away... but it does not matter WHEN it happens only that it could happen in the future and we should realize that and prevent or delay that future from becoming the present. This is why that year was meaningless, the book was out in 1948 so he just flipped the year to 1984 BECAUSE it didn't matter as long as it was lurking around the corner.

    Predicting a shorter work week and better life through SCIENCE is not wrong. Like 1984, many things happened. We ALL can fly, just not in individual cars; which we could do at massive expense (or impossibly cheap energy... like Mr. Fusion.)

    The 1950s was the beginning of socially engineering the culture we have today and like most things 30 years old, people just assume it was always that way in the past. They promoted this economic boom to prevent a depression and make some people richer but it will BUST. In some ways that is beginning now with global warming bringing the reality of physics to our ignorant assumptions of infinite growth which back then didn't get considered and still doesn't get as much serious thought as it should. It's only when you get close to the wall that people begin to see the wall coming. Some people are more near sighted than others.

  55. "If we can actually produce twice as much..." by rnturn · · Score: 2

    We--and I think by "we", he means "we business owners"--can have employees work for half the hours or only have half the employees.

    Does he seriously think any business wouldn't jump at the chance to reduce their expenses by slashing employees and/or wages? The chance that any company is going to offer employees the same salary once an AI is doing more of their work is nearly non-existent. Sure... you'll have more free time once the AI does your work but you won't have any money to do anything with that free time. Maybe the AI will give you the freedom to find a second job...

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  56. A right as a human by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Each human should have a percentage of the sustainably/properly used global resources. The resources Gates is clinging so titley onto In my opinion is not his, and could a long ways to cleaning up our Fucking Mess We made here on Earth.

    --
    [($)]
  57. Software development example by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 2

    We programmers have been automating our own tasks for decades.

    First, we created assembly language to make it easier to generate machine code.
    We created compilers to automatically generate many op codes with a single line.
    We created form designers to take the drudgery out of positioning controls on a window.
    We created methods of sharing components via NuGet or other repositories so we didn't have to re-create components every time we needed them.
    We learned how to automate unit and integration testing of our software.
    We learned how to automate deployment of new versions of our code.

    In one day, I can write more USEFUL code than a programmer in the 1960s could write in a month. But somehow, there's still PLENTY of work for all of us programmers to do. Most every programming shop or department has a backlog measured in YEARS.

    As with programming, if we automate more of our non-programming chores, we won't all be out of work. We'll just be able to get more done, things we couldn't even have imagined getting done years ago.

    1. Re:Software development example by kzwork · · Score: 1

      But Windows, controls and forms are for human beings which are jobless (you already forgot). So you will be out of job too. Unless you start programming embedded devices (robots, right).

    2. Re:Software development example by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. Those "poor" human beings WON'T be jobless, unless they just don't want to work...just like there's no shortage of programming jobs despite 90+% of the job having been already taken over by automated programming tools.

  58. It's a VERY good thing by nichogenius · · Score: 1

    Why waste man hours on something computers and machines can do? As a lazy guy, I'd love it if society could be more automated. Unfortunately humans don't like becoming obsolete as their incomes being built around obsolete skills. Fortunately, humans, unlike machines, can develop new (marketable) skills without being programmed, though AI may take that advantage away from us too. There are problems for sure, but making society more efficient by automation is a very good thing. The Technology isn't the first revolution that made millions of jobs obsolete... the industrial revolution did that 100 years ago and we don't regret that change, do we?

  59. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, so would they mercy kill the survivors off-screen because it wouldn't be moral to let them live with PTSD for the rest of their lives? You did say the teleporter keeps the most recent scan right? So if they used the teleporter again, the computer would keep a scan of the user, traumatic memories and all, correct?

  60. Good sample of detachment from (others') reality by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

    I don't even need to come into the AI-will-take-all-the-jobs or less-jobs-means-more-benefits sub-nonsenses to highlight how detached is Bill from his surrounding reality. I can just focus on his assumption that the immediate consequence of working less or not having a job is having free time to enjoy and do whatever you please! Just this issue denotes a tremendous misperception of his and others' (better: most-of-the-world's) position.

    Some people might think that this is an extreme example, that Bill has always been living in his rich bubble. But I am quite sure that similar misperceptions are surprisingly common, among both rich and poor people. Ones by thinking that having whatever is a matter of just wishing it (or not accepting that they have got lots of things that many other people never got); and the others by unhealthily aspiring to what they will never get (or by seriously believing that everyone else has similar unhealthy expectations). Both of them not accepting themselves/others and likely to make fools of themselves when trying to apply their ideas in the real (others') world.

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  61. Re: It's Star Trek's post-scarcity economic theor by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    I don't know if you're being wilfully obtuse or I'm missing the joke, but presumably the "restore point" would be when (or immediately before) they were beamed down.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  62. My robot does my homework by jago25_98 · · Score: 1

    My robot does my homework.
    He helps me every night.
    The trouble is he doesn’t get
    too many answers right.

    He’d probably do better
    at homework but, you see,
    I built him, so he only knows
    the things he learned from me.

      --Kenn Nesbitt

  63. Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody having everything they need and not wanting more is utopia or, at least, far, far in the future. People are driven to produce the best offspring with the best partner they can find. This drive will not go away anytime soon. It leads to competition, which leads to hierarchical ordering where those at the bottom are willing to use their time to get to the top and those at the top are using any means necessary to stay there. Throw in the trade, and you'll get money, "time is money" and rich and poor. Perhaps people won't be buying food and shelter, but they'll be buying whatever can make a better offspring and get you a better partner.

  64. "Longer vacations"? by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Not for those who sell labor. THEY won't have any income at all. You know, look around you as you drive through skid row. All those families in tents worked for a living while they could

  65. Politicians and entrepenurs won't like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This means a very radical social change, we are still living a social model enshrined since more than 3000 years (slightly changes but the same model).
    I think that companies will embrace it slowly but politicians definetly won't like it because that would level regular people in ways that they won't be able to manipulate or divide easily to commit their wants.

  66. Yes, let them eat cake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. The peasants shouldn't be such winy little bitches.

    They should just think like multi-billionaires.

  67. True, but? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Automation makes a bigger pie.

    True, but the question is how is that larger pie distributed? The median (not average) slice of pie may well shrink. (I trust slashdotters have a grasp of the significance of median vs average. If not, read this as my vs the rich's slice.)

  68. mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will believe if you and your friend Warren Buffet and Jeff Bevos buy a modest home for all of the homeless. After all, you three own HALF OF THE WEALTH IN THE ENTIRE U.S. ECONOMY!

  69. rich billionaire is out of touch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't take my Wages!
    not everyone has billions of dollars to retire on.

  70. Money creation needs to be automated by unixisc · · Score: 1

    However, as automation eliminates most jobs, it also eliminates most (easy) ways of making money. Given that, automatically creating money for everybody should be the newest project out there, so that loss of jobs due to automation is a non-issue

    Maybe something akin to bitcoin mining?

  71. From the same asshole by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    From the same asshole who brought us Microsoft Bob.

  72. 80% Inheritance Tax by NewYork · · Score: 1

    In that case let's increase Inheritance tax to 80%

  73. Utopian Fantasies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These sort of utopian fantasies would be a whole lot more credible if the wealth of developed countries was visibly being transferred to the citizens. And work weeks were falling in some sort of measured and measurable way.

    Instead we see ever-increasing disparities of wealth, lots of homelessness and joblessness, and no great signs of the 'self-fulfillment' society envisioned in Star Trek.

    It's fun to imagine machines doing all the work and humans living idealized lives of learning, leisure and self-actualization. Instead it seems more likely that enforced unemployment will end in crime, drug addiction, poverty, depression, and obesity.

    I mean, where is the acknowledgement that work often gives us purpose and structure in our lives? That could change but the least likely way that will happen is: An unwanted layoff due to your job being taken over by an AI! No plan for the unemployed worker, no psychological preparation, no onboarding to your fulfilling alternate destiny. Also, no system for meeting the person's physical needs and no replacement of the monetary economy. Just GTFO, you aren't wanted or needed at work anymore!

    Yeah, that's how we are going to achieve the "post-work paradise".