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?"
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.
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.
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!)
...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?
He means unemployment and time to wander the streets because you're homeless.
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?
"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.
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.
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/
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?
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...
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".
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'
Indeed. 10,000 Microsoft employees became millionaires through their stock options.
Bill paid way better than Henry.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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
"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!!!
Rome had their bread and circuses, both free. Politicians need votes and/or support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
jesus fucking christ what an asshat.
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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
640K is all you'll ever need.
Clearly, Gates is a futurist of the first order.
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.
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