Slashdot Mirror


AI Could Devastate the Developing World (bloomberg.com)

Kai-Fu Lee, Chairman and CEO of Sinovation Ventures and author of "AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley and the New World Order," reports of the devastating impacts artificial intelligence could have on the developing world. An anonymous reader shares the report from Bloomberg: In recent decades, China and India have presented the world with two different models for how such countries can climb the development ladder. In the China model, a nation leverages its large population and low costs to build a base of blue-collar manufacturing. It then steadily works its way up the value chain by producing better and more technology-intensive goods. In the India model, a country combines a large English-speaking population with low costs to become a hub for outsourcing of low-end, white-collar jobs in fields such as business-process outsourcing and software testing. If successful, these relatively low-skilled jobs can be slowly upgraded to more advanced white-collar industries. Both models are based on a country's cost advantages in the performance of repetitive, non-social and largely uncreative work -- whether manual labor in factories or cognitive labor in call centers. Unfortunately for emerging economies, AI thrives at performing precisely this kind of work.

Without a cost incentive to locate in the developing world, corporations will bring many of these functions back to the countries where they're based. That will leave emerging economies, unable to grasp the bottom rungs of the development ladder, in a dangerous position: The large pool of young and relatively unskilled workers that once formed their greatest comparative advantage will become a liability -- a potentially explosive one. Increasing desperation in the developing world will contrast with a massive accumulation of wealth among the AI superpowers. AI runs on data and that dependence leads to a self-perpetuating cycle of consolidation in industries: The more data you have, the better your product. The better your product, the more users you gain. The more users you gain, the more data you have.
Lee says the best thing emerging economies can do is to "recognize that the traditional paths to economic development -- the China and India models -- are no longer viable." Countries with "less-educated workers" are advised to build up human-centered service industries.

"At the same time, developing countries need to carve out their own niches within the AI landscape," Lee writes. "... governments need to fund the AI education of their best and brightest students, with the goal of building local companies that employ AI."

165 comments

  1. More FUD clickbait by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 3, Interesting

    'nuff said.

    1. Re:More FUD clickbait by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Posting to remove incorrect mod

    2. Re:More FUD clickbait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shitty smelly parasites hindu-chimps.

  2. Civilization & Ecosystems by js290 · · Score: 2

    "Name one ecosystem that is better off for having agriculture moved into it?" Toby Hemenway http://bit.ly/1pnapoW

    "[Civilization] is all about living through our concepts... our idea we've imposed on reality & when reality doesn't behave according to our idea, what do we do? We input... we can never input enough to make our false concept correct." http://bit.ly/1GnbtAA

    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
  3. Do nothing by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Article doesn't have anything to do with AI. Someone throw an icy snow ball at whomever posted this...

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Do nothing by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      It's not third world countries that have the most to fear, it's the first world developed countries. If they don't have jobs they don't have money to buy from AI. Third world countries will always have subsistence farming and hunter-gather to fall back on.

    2. Re:Do nothing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Third world countries will always have subsistence farming and hunter-gather to fall back on.

      Why can't the first world also go back to subsistence farming?

    3. Re:Do nothing by bjwest · · Score: 2

      Why can't the first world also go back to subsistence farming?

      Because big Agra has has it all locked up here.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    4. Re:Do nothing by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      I think this may be the actual article.

    5. Re:Do nothing by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      We could, but don't expect it to be pretty.

    6. Re:Do nothing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      We could, but don't expect it to be pretty.

      Well, everyone going back to subsistence farming is such an obvious response to improvements in technology, that I just don't see what else we can do.

    7. Re:Do nothing by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      thanks

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    8. Re:Do nothing by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Funny

      We could kill each other? We've mastered that skill pretty well.

    9. Re:Do nothing by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Someone throw an icy snow ball at whomever posted this...

      Not sure where you live, but most countries don't expect any snow before a couple months...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    10. Re:Do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Third world countries will always have subsistence farming and hunter-gather to fall back on.

      Their populations are too high and the ecosystems too devastated to do that.

    11. Re:Do nothing by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because subsistence farming in Europe would lead to a famine that makes the Irish famines of the 1840s look like a family picnic. There's WAY more people living there now than the continent itself can feed with low yield subsistence farming. And if history taught us one thing, then that societies with starving populations aren't too stable.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in other countries the 1% have it all locked up too. The US has more unowned land than most other countries; especially when compared to millennia old nations.

    13. Re:Do nothing by orlanz · · Score: 1

      The post is just more BS, and I am sure the book isn't as doom and gloom (not linked). We have had automation of "repetitive" and "labor intensive" tasks for 50+ years. And the cost hasn't changed much in the last two decades. All that has changed is the computing power that allows more flexible boundaries, and specification tolerances (the machine "learns via trial & error" to get back to tight tolerances).

      But even though it was entirely feasible in the last 20 years to replace 80% of what China and India do with a robot arm or software script, we haven't. The simple reason isn't the traditional deployment cost but the development cost. Every minor variation in the process needs a massive development cost; a change that is extremely cheap for even the intelligence level of a dog. Simply put, we are in a constantly changing world and humans are a million times better & faster at adapting to it than even the most powerful AIs backed by the most advanced developers we have today.

      Think fidget spinners, do we really think the AI or automation that would replace the human components in the production & logistics chain would have an ROI on its demand curve/spike? The fad would be over long before the systems were developed, machine learned, and churned out the first widgets.

      The current production systems are as automated as realistically feasible and continue to automate at a glacial pace in comparison to technological capability. When I visit factories & offices, I am dumbfounded at the level of manual efforts deployed. But the manager running operations for 25+ years just chuckles at my naivety. All these CEOs and researchers writing these articles from their offices closed off from the real world, only look at the technological capabilities and drum up all kinds of fantasies & nightmares.

      Its no different than envisioning that the StarTrek style food dispenser is only 20 years away and the labor impacts it will have all over the world. We can't even get the speech recognition right. And this is all before we add the political landscape hindering the technology.

      Side note: There is script automation happening in India that is costing a lot of jobs. But keep in mind, those scripts could have been developed and written when Perl 1.0 came out. Automation & AI will impact the developing world. But they are just catching up to developed nations as those impacts on labor are far more prevalent in the US, Germany, etc. And like the developed nations, they too will adapt with some pain.

    14. Re: Do nothing by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

      You have water, enough time to post on Slashdot, and a device to remove energy from a lump of mass called a refrigerator. Making a snowball at any time of year with all that is hardly rocket surgery or brain science.

    15. Re:Do nothing by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

      Actually, I disagree. One thing that happened with the housing melt down is there are many empty lots within the cities where buildings have been torn down. Community Gardens. When it comes to fresh meat, it might be good to fall back to the old farming ways. No more steroids to fatten up meat. And no, I don't want to go back to the horse and buggy days. But less reliance on big AG and more on self sufficiency might be a good thing.

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    16. Re:Do nothing by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Nobody actually wants to go back to subsistence farming except for hippie moms who have never actually had to live that way. If we can add artificial intelligence to our own, everybody wins, in both the developed and developing world. New ideas, new methods, new forms organization to try out.

    17. Re:Do nothing by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > The US has more unowned land

      [[Citation]]

      Huh? The *entire* US is either owned publicly or privately.

      Where is this "unowned" land you speak of ?

    18. Re:Do nothing by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, everyone going back to subsistence farming is such an obvious response to improvements in technology, that I just don't see what else we can do.

      Food production is one of the most efficient industries of our modern economy. The US has went from 90% of our population being farmers in 1800 to 2% today, and we export about 20% of what we produce. Subsistence farming is a hobby, not a practical way for citizens in the developed world to feed themselves. Some form of basic income which covers necessities such as food is far more realistic than a return to subsistence farming.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    19. Re:Do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Third world countries will always have subsistence farming and hunter-gather to fall back on.

      Their populations are too high and the ecosystems too devastated to do that.

      For those concentrated in areas on the coasts, much of the rest of the inland population could do fine.

    20. Re:Do nothing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's WAY more people living there now than the continent itself can feed with low yield subsistence farming.

      That's a straw man. The simple fact is that planting crops in guilds leads to higher per-acre yields than factory farming, not lower ones. Monocultures are inefficient, and we only use them so that we can utilize large, heavy, hardpan-creating machinery for cultivation — not because they produce more food per acre. It's more food per man-hour. But if people aren't working, they'll have time to grow food. And if we continue using factory farming, they'll have to grow food, because those mass monocultural farming techniques destroy topsoil and render it inert. That's why we use synthetic fertilizers; when growing in dead dirt instead of living topsoil, you're basically growing hydroponically.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Do nothing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Huh? The *entire* US is either owned publicly or privately.
      Where is this "unowned" land you speak of ?

      They probably refer to the land controlled by the BLM, which covers some 25% of the land mass of the USA. It's owned by the government, and leased to ranchers for grazing cattle, and to oil companies who site wells there. There have been many calls to split this land up into parcels and sell it to the populace... from libertarians and other corporate bastards, anyway.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:Do nothing by bjwest · · Score: 1

      Community gardens are a good way to get some fresh veggies for a few, but there is no way an empty lot scattered here and there will feed an entire community. You could raze New York City to the ground and there wouldn't be enough land to grow food for even a quarter of the population. Subsistence farming in the First World will never work again, especially in the cities, the population is just too large. When I said big Agra has everything locked up, I wasn't talking only in land, but also in planting, harvesting, processing and distribution, and they'll never give that infrastructure up willingly. If it fails, and god help us if it ever does, and we have to return small farms scattered throughout, it will take time to rebuild the old infrastructure, if it ever can be rebuilt.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    23. Re:Do nothing by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      That "unowned" land is mostly unarable mountains, desert, and scrublands. Some of it is good for grazing, some of it is good for mining, some of it is good for forestry - and is being used as such already via leases. The rest is not really good for anything, and none of it is what could really be considered arable.

    24. Re:Do nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you merely stringing words together? A strawman must be false, which this is not. Crops are not "planted in guilds" and never have been. Modern farming techniques allowed humans to go from 1 billion to 7 in less than a century. Monocultures are more efficient, but drain the soil of resources.

      Everything you have said is wrong. You should feel bad. You constantly make statements of which you know nothing about. Why anyone wastes modpoints on you leads one to wonder if anyone else actually does.

    25. Re:Do nothing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Crops are not "planted in guilds" and never have been.

      Oh, my sweet, summer child.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Do nothing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Food production is one of the most efficient industries of our modern economy.

      It's efficient if you measure by man-hours, or by profit produced for big ag, but it is not efficient in literally any other way. It depletes topsoil, it consumes vast quantities of energy both in production and in transport, and it uses more acres per unit of food actually consumed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re: Do nothing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      'Snow' is pretty hard to make. Ice is easy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:Do nothing by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You don't have to convince me. I want the automation to happen. The existing paradigm is going to lead to war if it doesn't collapse.

      Things need to change to save our silly civilization. I'm all for it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    29. Re:Do nothing by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      just wow.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    30. Re:Do nothing by Do+You+Smell+That · · Score: 1
      1st sentence, baseless attack based on your lack of understanding of permaculture principles, and the (incredibly) increased density achievable if attention is paid to which plants/animals can increase production _for_ us. Side point, this work is (currently) not hyper-automatable, meaning this is one of those nice inefficient industries like craft brewing where many care to participate and can be rewarded for doing so.

      2nd sentence, an attempt to categorize GP into a group based on your evident (see above) lack of understanding of the concepts the GP is discussing.

      3rd sentence, assertion based on ...(see above)

      4th, correct, but missing an analysis of how farming techniques based on guilds, companion planting, and other (less hyper-automatable farming techniques) would compare to this... there's limited data here to support such an analysis, but it's clear you didn't try.

      5th sentence we agree, but you also agree with the GP. I promise.

      ...I don't have the energy to go on. Please invest a few days/weeks studying the combinatorial effects of plants who provide inputs to each other. Follow please with some analysis.

      ...as an aside, please stop and think about _when_ you actually have enough information to be a total douche. "you should feel bad" is a great way to make someone feel like shit, and make yourself feel cool, when you're right... but when you're wrong, it shows you to be an arrogant shit. Hence the AC, i'd imagine. You're not even trying to be right, just trying to sound right. We see the difference.

      --
      I'm not good at making signatures...
  4. AI and robots make more living models viable by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Developing cultures are some of the most helped by the rise of AI and robotics.

    The improvement to a place like the U.S. is somewhat marginal. But for a small village without many resources, what does it mean when suddenly one AI agricultural unit can help plant 24x7 while a farming AI linked to global weather can make informed planting choices for them? That or some kind of on-site vet AI to diagnose issues with livestock and recommend quarantine much faster than it might hav happened otherwise.

    All of this could easily be possible with no outside links and just a small solar generation capability. We could literally see enabling many more people to live a subsistence lifestyle than could have otherwise.

    Why drag them full-on into an American or Chinese model if they do not have to go?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But for a small village without many resources

      That "small" village without many resources has too many people that can't support themselves (aka superfluous labor). AI will exacerbate the problem as fewer will now be able to migrate to the cities to work in manufacturing for subsistence wages. They'll have to follow the Philippine model and export nannies, nurses, home care workers and you get the idea.

    2. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by hey! · · Score: 2

      Well, as with any other technology, what actually gets done with it is very different from what possibly could get done with it.

      We've long had the technology for some time to eliminate many, many problems the poor of the world have. For example malaria kills half a million people around the world annually and debilitates hundreds of millions more, but we've had the scientific knowledge to eradicate it for decades now.

      The problem is that poor people don't have the money to pay for it. That's always the problem. It doesn't take a genius to figure out all kinds of applications of AI that would improve the lot of poor third world villages, but it takes one hell of a genius to figure out how to get those systems built and deployed to those people.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be more honest, "human services" include prostitution, body servants, and things like that too. Surely the developing world can still aspire to be more than just providing domestic servants and prostitutes to a high value westerners.

    4. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The far more likely result is that the local ruling class decides it doesn't need the peseants anymore, and disposes of them and/or uses them as slaves.

    5. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      What do you propose to do against malaria? DDT? The situation isn't the same when the US sprayed it everywhere, resistance is in the genetic junk code now, it will evolve far faster. It's doubtful the same success could be had with DDT again. Solutions now require discipline, organization and persistence.

      Also we can only really help them with money, unless you propose colonizing third world shitholes and directing the labour ourselves. If they can't form a slightly sane government they are shit out of luck.

    6. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Their problem is corruption and dictatorship. The farmers, and those who would build businesses that hire laborers, cannot do so without myriad kickbacks just to get anything done.

      In other words, any chance of success is hampered by lowered possibility of reward (lower reward or failure due to corruption) so many say screw it and don't try.

      People need to be secure in their long-term investmens from every manner of attack. Not only is this kind of analysis of the political situation (corruption, freedom) an influence you cannot ignore, but it is vastly the central one.

      There are corrupt nations with vast resources that go nowhere and nations like Japan with few resources but economic freedom from that level of corruption that are mighty with economic power.

      Of course the west buys cooperation from corrupt dictatorships by throwing them money (food aid, military aid) precisely so the corruption can get bought off skimming from it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by hey! · · Score: 2

      House based spraying of permethrin and permethrin impregnated bed nets. DDT would be potentially useful, but it has to at all costs be kept from being stolen and diverted to agricultural use. Believe me, I know, I worked for years in vector borne disease control and it's feasible and I was asked to look into the feasibility of promoting the use of DDT for household applications. DDT could be useful, but is neither necessary nor sufficient, and is a management can of worms.

      You don't have to colonize, a modest amount of money buys you everything you need, and it doesn't take much to get a lot of labor in the third world. That's why malaria is no longer endemic in places like the US and the UK. Both places were able to eradicate it in the 20th century, Britain after it had been endemic for centuries, because they had the resources to pay.

      Why would we pay? Self-interest. Malaria is a force which subtly destabilizes countries in multiple ways. In the long run we'd both save money in defense and make money in trade as malaria-infested places become more prosperous. Why don't we pay? It'd take enlightened self-interest.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      It takes a lot of supervision to get uncorrupted labour in the third world. Mosquito nets still have some commercial value (plain permethrin even more).

    9. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Everything has some value, but the point is to glut the market with free (or nearly free) mosquito nets.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by hey! · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:AI and robots make more living models viable by hey! · · Score: 1

      None of this is unknown, and none of this is that hard to solve with a little money.

      The big problem with DDT is that it is *highly* valuable to people who don't have very much making it inevitable that some of it will be stolen. That's true of permethrin, but you can just write that off. Permethrin treated bed nets, even more so. What are people going to use them for? Exactly what you bought them for.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  5. Africa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are talking about Africa, the last major area to "develop. And kind of ironic coming from a Chinese CEO; all the work China is doing in Africa is largely being done by Chinese construction crews. Can't lose a job to AI if you never had it in the first place

    1. Re:Africa by Viol8 · · Score: 2

      "all the work China is doing in Africa is largely being done by Chinese construction crews"

      There's a reason for that, but in todays politically correct west we're not allowed to say it. The chinese are less bothered by PC bullshit however which is why they'll probably triumph economically in the end.

    2. Re:Africa by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "all the work China is doing in Africa is largely being done by Chinese construction crews"

      There's a reason for that, but in todays politically correct west we're not allowed to say it.

      Why wouldn't you be allowed to say that the Chinese don't want the Africans to have the skills to build the factories they're going to work in, because the Chinese want to get paid for that work?

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

      "all the work China is doing in Africa is largely being done by Chinese construction crews"

      There's a reason for that, but in todays politically correct west we're not allowed to say it.

      Why wouldn't you be allowed to say that the Chinese don't want the Africans to have the skills to build the factories they're going to work in, because the Chinese want to get paid for that work?

      No. I've spent some time in Africa. The reason the Chinese are doing the work now, is the same reason why the British colonies in Africa imported Chinese and Indian labour at great expense a hundred years ago. The local population is often just not willing or not capable.

    4. Re:Africa by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      The Chinese think they will avoid nationalization by getting 99 year leases on ports etc.

      They should look at the 'Suez Canal Corporation' to see their future. Their investments will be nationalized by kleptocracies, same as the Brit's and Frog's were.

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

      Their investments will be nationalized by kleptocracies, same as the Brit's and Frog's were.

      Kleptocracy is what we've got here in America, where corporations are stealing our future and selling it to us at a steep markup, while we pay for the externalities.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Africa by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      The chinese arn't particularly concerned about human rights or international law, they're very much into gunboat diplomacy. Ask the tibetans. If some tinpot dictator in africa nationalised chinese assets he'd be dead within a month and his palace a smouldering ruin.

  6. Thank god almighty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That would be the greatest thing ever to happen -- there is absolutely no reason that India etc. should have any participation in the technological economy, except that the British empire blessed them with the English language and telephony has gotten cheap.

  7. AI is working Communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hence the fear.

  8. Time to start the purge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world has a few billion people more than it needs or even can support anyway.

    1. Re:Time to start the purge by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Please don't wait, be the first to commit suicide.

      Thank you.

  9. Why nations fail by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 1

    In the book "Why Nations Fail" by Acemoglu and Robinson, they would call this a microeconomic solution which in the end has little effect on the prosperity of a nation. That is unless AI is what they call a "critical juncture" - an event or change which is so disruptive that it changes the path of history. Examples of such changes include the industrial revolution; colonization; the Black Death; the French and various other national revolutions. However, I'm doubtful that it will include AI and more Alexa-style products.

    1. Re:Why nations fail by MtHuurne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Different things are called "AI" these days. Thinking machines are still very primitive, there hasn't been a breakthrough there. What is starting to show results are statistical models on large data sets, that are constructed at least partially automatically.

      But these depend on having a large data set, which means that whatever company has the most data will likely have the best model, which in turn attracts more users, allowing them to collect more data. So it's hard for a newcomer to gain traction.

      In any case, the point I think the authors were making (the wrong article is linked so I can't easily verify it) is that AI will make it harder for developing nations to improve their economies, rather than making their current economies worse. So it's more a case of AI undermining evolutionary development than it being a revolution in itself.

  10. I'm not sure I agree... by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    People will always want to own physical things such as houses, cars, computers, clothing, cell phones, etc. Even with the advent of robotic manufacturing these material things require some labor to make and the cheaper the labor the more likely that's where things will be manufactured, regardless of tariffs. Robots help, but look at the recent experience of Tesla in making their new car - there appeared to be too many robots and not enough human hands in the process. There's at least one reason many high tech, expensive things (Apple phones, Dell, Lenovo and other computers, steel for John Deere equipment...) are made in China and that's the cost of labor. In the future I can see that China and maybe India may have the intellectual capability and experience to be in the development game and control both ends of the process of making things. Which countries will suffer economic problems because of this? Likely those with expensive labor and high paid developer talent.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re: I'm not sure I agree... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've heard rumors that developers in Shanghai already get paid more money than developers in Silicon Valley. Remember, SV wages have stagnated for 15 years even as cost of living skyrocketed.

  11. Nah... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    We're lazy - we need AI to take over...

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Nah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am waiting for my first Microsoft Support call from an AI in Kolkota...
      "Halo, dis is Steve Smith from Mykrosurft Sappot, dere is a prowblem wit yor kompootere..."

    2. Re:Nah... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Laziness + AI = -humanity

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  12. I, for one, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our AI laborers.

  13. Yes it's not technically AI by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    it's automation with a bit of machine learning, but it's easier to say "A.I." as shorthand for it. If this stuff works then yeah, China & India are pretty boned. They're going to have massive surplus populations and nothing to do with them. But they're also going to be straddled with a "if you don't work you don't eat" culture. They'll end up with dictators and massive wars. Eventually the US will get dragged into it too, just like we did with WWII. Same for the EU.

    There's basically two scenarios where this doesn't happen. 1st, the tech doesn't actually work. That doesn't seem to be the case. The tech works just fine it just takes time to roll it out. Hence the timelines given in TFA. 2nd China & India pass laws blocking the tech roll out and retarding development in order to preserve jobs. There's a third possibility, which is make work projects, but that means paying taxes for people to do useless things, which the gov'ts will get called out on in most cases. #2 might actually happen though, but again, it's tough to get it past people. Again, people don't like paying for things they don't have too, and that includes paying for workers who could be replaced.

    What this means is that the dystopia scenario is by far the most likely. And it's not like it's sci-fi even. The same thing happened during the last industrial revolution. Luddites weren't just scared of tech, they lost their livelihoods. There was nearly 80 years of technology unemployment until WWI & II came along and blew up enough stuff that we had to pay folks to put it back together.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      You are describing the outcome for the entire world. Where an insane few who own the robots demand, everyone just up and fucking die. Why would we, allow corporations to own the robots that would enslave us, the idea is insane.

      Sure the countries lacking in primary resources or more specifically insufficient primary resources to sustain themselves and their robot labour force, that also includes the US the biggest parasite nation on the planet, feeding upon the rest of the world to our extinction.

      Psychopathic capitalism is the solution to nothing and simply the current theatre of chaos orchestrated by psychopaths. Everything will change, even farms will no longer be worth it with genetic engineering of algae. So it is a competition between the societies who create the best infrastructure, no only on world but beyond, not necessarily alone but working with others.

      Your insane psychopath world will be put down to be replaced by what ever real democracy, and real associations between people, will produce, once the psychopaths have been removed from where they do harm.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    2. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As to surplus populations, we'll see what happens. If the communists are not entirely intellectually and ethically bankrupt then they'll take care of the proletariat. Either way, it will be fun to watch. As to surplus population outside of the China etc, I could wax on with several positive scenarios that address those issues. We are entering a socio-technological paradigm shift. This is a change we went through when we went from hunter gather to agrarian farmers... and then again when we went from that to urban industrial... This is a big move. Every time it happens there is suffering. Gods die... the way and what people worship. Political systems collapse. Very volatile stuff.

      But none of us has a crystal ball on it. If you are interested in my crystal ball gazing... I can share that... if not, then I'll keep it to myself.

      As to everything being bad before WW1 and 2... the stats don't support that position. We can go through the historical economic data if you want.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re: Yes it's not technically AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure the tech works just fine... when it's closely supervised by tech folks under ideal conditions. See: self driving cars and what an utter failure they are, all while a fawning media refuses to report on any of the failures until it's too obvious to ignore.

    4. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, like any type of humans in the world and in the history, there was, is, and will be some fraction of them that go in the insane psychopath category. Most of them don't harm so much, but a few of them are able to grab incredibly destructive power by manipulating enough peoples minds. It's clear that some form of AI will be used that way too, with or without human control, simply because it's a physical possibility, it's just a matter of time. The real question is how we can build effective defense against that, without accelerating the problem occurrence to much. It's hard to think about what can do something massively more powerful than our own human brain.

    5. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I appreciate your optimism and hope you are right. And will be doing my best to work towards the better world you describe. But I find it hard to believe it's a likely outcome given the politics of the past 50 years.

    6. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested to read whatever you see in your crystal ball.

    7. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China has empty cities built just waiting for people. They also have the governmental system which enables them to fiat say "One Child policy back in effect" or "Please lie down in the trench for the glory of China"

    8. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to surplus populations, we'll see what happens.

      The easy answer is global pandemic. We already know its not if but when.
      And where do they usually start?
      China or SE Asia, due to the close proximity of livestock and people.
      The viruses are able to make that shift from ducks for example, to humans.

      This is what is going to "cull the herd" on planet Earth.

    9. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      But they're also going to be straddled with a "if you don't work you don't eat" culture.

      You say that like it's a bad thing. Let's look at the opposite to see if that's good - you do nothing and we'll take care of you. Does that sound like a good sustainable path to you?

    10. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by lgw · · Score: 1

      China & India are pretty boned.

      India has long has a strategy of not being dependent on manufacturing outsourcing for their economy, It's a very different economy than China, attempting to be more self-sufficient. They might be pretty boned if tech immigration is ended, though.

      They're going to have massive surplus populations

      You are using the language of genocide. Please stop. People are a resource, not a problem. Education can be a problem. Totalitarian regimes can be a problem. People per se are not a problem.

      But they're also going to be straddled with a "if you don't work you don't eat" culture. They'll end up with dictators and massive wars.

      China is communist, India socialist. China already has a dictator. Hopefully we won't see another massive war - of all the people killed in war in human history, most were killed in Chinese civil wars.

      Both of these nations are still trying to get the majority of their people out of rural poverty. AI is not going to make people's lives worse in any direct way, nor will it replace humans in building all of the infrastructure these nations need to "emerge". There's plenty of work needed, and if AI means less people need to work in factories, that just means more people can work building factories (and roads, and plumbing, etc, etc).

      Frankly, China has deeper issues - all the economic waste in building an amazing amount of housing that no one lives in, for one.

       

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    11. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're mssing the point. It's entirely one thing to have a "if you don't work you don't eat" culture in a society where *there is at least some (maybe shitty, low paid) work available*.

      This thread is about the scenario where there is nowhere like enough work to go round so you now have millions of people in a "starve to death or rise up in revolt**" position.

      **Loot, steal whatever

    12. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Empty crumbling cities...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by RalphSlate · · Score: 1

      "Surplus populations"? What an insane way to frame the problem - that thinking implies that if society does not need any more labor, a person is expendable. In reality, that person should be thought of as "free from servitude" and our goal should be to move everyone into that category.

      If all of humankind's needs can be met via technology and no human labor, then we just need to figure out a different way to allocate resources, because if everything is free, then a hell of a lot of people will want a giant mansion on Hawaii. Plus, most humans do seem to like to compete for their spoils instead of to just have spoils handed to them.

      We allocate resources based on a combination of "work" and "capital gains" (meaning the amount someone can coerce others to sell their labor to you for a loss). Maybe we should be thinking of another way to do it.

    14. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Don't complain to me about "surplus population" I was responding to someone else that used it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    15. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      well, briefly going over past paradigms to show the patterns... I'm going to be very general here... this is off the top of my head.

      10,000 years ago we were pretty much all hunter gatherers. We were generally nomadic. We tended to worship animals. Our political systems were small and often based on family. Money was more a concept of social capital then it was little objects made by whomever. Trade between tribes happened.

      5,000 years ago we started to see a lot of societies/civilizations/population groups shift to sedentary agrarian farmers. Most people started worshiping the weather. Land rights became a thing. Our political systems got larger but were still typically based on family. Populations increased dramatically and the social connections between each in the society became more formalized and less personal because people didn't know each other as well. Money happened to compensate for social capital not being able to function with that many people. Trade if anything decreased for a lot of people at least at the start. Roads were built ultimately. Sea trade started to become a thing. The political and economic inequality increased as the utility of every member to the society decreased. In a small hunter gatherer tribe a single person that participates in the hunt is a bigger stake holder than is a tenant farmer on a lord's land. This economic reality manifested itself politically in that the less of a stake holder you are the less agency you have in the society.

      250ish years ago machines and new ideas started changing the way we do things. Labor moved from the farms to the cities. Economies of scale. Assembly lines. Rail hubs. Shipping ports. By this point weather worship basically doesn't exist and people start to worship "systems" that are relevant to the logistics of the new paradigm. You get people worshiping the "invisible hand" or some of the various ideas Karl Marx was pushing. It always gets metaphysical. The population concentrating has political consequences. The way we live. The way we think. All of it driven by logistical imperative. Do this or you don't eat... just like every other paradigm before. One of the big changes was the transition from peasant farmers to urban factory worker. The urban factory worker is a much bigger stake holder and has a much bigger influence just on a 1:1 basis than does the peasant farmer. Going with the pattern this resulted in an expansion of liberties and rights that in previous systems would not have happened because the man in question didn't have the leverage to demand it. Slavery goes away... not only because some find it morally wrong but also because it can't economically compete with the new industrial age.

      Now-ish, going on what I said above, I will base my tea leaf reading on the logistics and extrapolate from there. Automation undermines economies of scale since economies of scale are primarily based on labor efficiency. There are many exceptions where bigger is better indifferent to labor but when it comes to factories... it is generally labor. This means the cities just like the fields of the past will lose some relevance. Using automation we could source factories at point of use more efficiently than concentrating them. Transport costs largely irrelevant at this point given how cheaply we move goods. A container ship can move 1 ton of goods across the seas on average at about 1000 miles per gallon of bunker fuel. So transport won't force people out of concentration but real estate prices, regulation, over standardization/lack of customization, etc probably will over time. I think we're going to have a more distributed industrial framework. Rather than a few big factories making everything... there's no reason why the thing that makes whatever couldn't be within a day's car drive of everyone. Micro factories. Combine this with the internet and you have an increasing agency of localities as they gain logistical independence. Look at big corporations competing with smaller corporations, big helps you do other things like manage

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    16. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I think of AI like the new version of the "book".

      The idea of a book is to store a man's knowledge so that someone else... possibly even another generation can absorb that knowledge. But books have no identity or personality... they're always slaved the mind that absorbs them. And whether the information is even retained is entirely dependent on someone else wanting to read the thing.

      AI... or a persistent artificial personality will be fed knowledge by its creators and given a personality... a ethical and moral premise... objectives... things to avoid... whatever. And to the extent that initial input is stable the AI will continue to be "be" what the creators made it. You see... a step beyond the book.

      The good or bad of the AI will be a matter of what you put into it. Fill it with craziness and you have a crazy AI. Fill it with wisdom and you have something that might be very useful to people.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Your insane psychopath world will be put down to be replaced by what ever real democracy, and real associations between people, will produce, once the psychopaths have been removed from where they do harm.

      Good luck with that.
      Those "psychopaths" will own all the big weapons, including flying robosoldiers,
      and we will have no chance against them.

    18. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      People are a resource, not a problem.

      True, if you need that resource.
      Otherwise they are a problem.

    19. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by lgw · · Score: 1

      Who is "you"? A genocidal dictator? Each person needs himself.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    20. Re:Yes it's not technically AI by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      Again, people don't like paying for things they don't have too

      You are thinking from a scarcity mindset. If "paying" just means devoting some of the robots work for the benefit of others, many people would do it gladly. Just follow any open-source software development mailing list, and you might find people ready to "pay" a lot that they "don't have too". Many of them are not prepping their resumes for searching a job.

      Software development is one of the recent development in the history of mankind where one can give without losing anything. Time would flow anyway at the rate of one second per second - so one doesn't really "give" time. Just do one thing in preference to another. And this development has shown the huge willingness of people to give when there is no real scarcity.

      So it is all about who owns the near infinite resources. If it is a few psychopaths - then yes they may not want to "pay". But if the distribution is wider such that "normal" people are also able to "pay" - one might again discover the goodness of mankind.

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
  14. The uncomfortable conclusion by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After another 30-50 years when we finally have robotics and AI, we simply won't need workers any more. Robots will do the job of all but a few of the working class, and AI will do the job of all but a few of the middle class. There will be a small number of people necessary, and the rest will be superfluous. So what to do with all these useless eaters?

    I see it ending badly. The ruling class isn't going to have any of it. Throughout history, they always considered us deplorable but always needed us to create their wealth for them. Sort of like how a farmer might not like his animals, but needs them. So he has to feed them, tend fields for them, heal them when they're sick, etc., regardless of how he feels about them. But what happens when the farmer gets robot animals that produce just as well as the regular kind, but don't need hugely expensive housing or hospitals or EBT cards?

    Especially considering the negative impact that massive numbers of humans have on the environment, and the negative outcomes that occur when these humans are allowed to vote their own interests (Brexit, Italexit, Trump) then I just don't get why we'll be allowed to continue in the current way. Once automated weapons can be commanded directly without all those generals, colonels, captains, sergeants and privates being required, our ruling class can at last do whatever it wants without restriction. It will be a great day for them, the realization of a dream thousands of years old. Imagine people like Donald Rumsfeld or Pol Pot able to implement their agendas with no restrictions.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:The uncomfortable conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just NOW figuring out that the world isn't sustainable as it is? God damn you're a simplistic moron thinking in Fox News terms so plainly lol. You're not even going to MAKE it to the apocalypse you fucking idiot, lol.

    2. Re:The uncomfortable conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After another 30-50 years when we finally have robotics and AI, we simply won't need workers any more. Robots will do the job of all but a few of the working class, and AI will do the job of all but a few of the middle class. There will be a small number of people necessary, and the rest will be superfluous. So what to do with all these useless eaters?

      In general more unemployed is likely to equal more violence/jails/police/etc.

      AI is the kind of thing that tends to help one man do more than one man could before, but in ways that normal tools wouldn't provide. This could be in making one Russian troll look like a thousand, or it could be allowing one soldier to control ten killing machines. Heck it could even be having one person supervise all the cooking at a McDonalds, or rather have one person supervise everything at a McDonalds.

      At work I actually avoid jobs dealing with AI. I could certainly learn the material, but I choose not to help advance it. Then again, AI at work tends to have military applications. I think we need to establish some ethical guidelines and perhaps decide this far and no further.

    3. Re:The uncomfortable conclusion by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The problem for the elite is asymmetric warfare. Yes, robot armies can massacre most of the world ... but so can biological weapons. As long as we have our brains, they can't go to war against us because we can take them down with us. The first order of business for the neofeudal elite if they wanted to thin us out should be to dumb us down and convince us not to breed except with low IQ partners.

      So turn on the TV, have some fluoridated water and vote for mass immigration.

    4. Re:The uncomfortable conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting how Pol Pot and Rumsfeld are included alongside each other. I have no love for Rumsfeld but I think the implied comparison lessens how incredibly Hitler/Stalin-esque -or worse- Pol Pot's regime was in it's time.

    5. Re:The uncomfortable conclusion by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Pol Pot is a tough one for lefties.

      Chomsky is a well known denier of the Cambodian holocaust. Lefties LOVE Chomsky, he tells them exactly what they want to hear.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  15. goodbye CAPTCHA: populous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The grannies are evolved to overpopulate. In other species like lemmings the natural collapse of the population is accepted. Our species has not evolved a way to accept the natural collapse of the population and will likely overshoot into extinction.

  16. Re:goddamn by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You know, that kind of reminds me of my reaction to seeing all the tabloid and magazine articles about the British royal family in my American supermarket checkout. I wouldn't buy a magazine about the royal family if I were British FFS. I don't see why anybody cares about them. But evidently people do.

    So here we an article about the impact of technology on poor people and you have exactly the same reaction: why would anybody care about these people? I can only answer the same way: it may be mystifying to you, but evidently people do.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. Huge Issue by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Right now some nations are competitive and some are not. The same goes for individuals some are competitive and many are not. We can not ignore the soon coming changes that will leave almost everyone unemployed and neither can the developing nations. The degree of change that we must create to keep the non competitive people up and running and having real spending money is at hand. If they do not have money they can not support business nor can they support a nation a they have so little to pay taxes with. If we fail to jump on this we will be doomed unless global warming kills us first. For now the climate change deniers should explain that we now have Jaguars in Arizona as it is now warm enough for them to make their home.

    1. Re:Huge Issue by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      we now have Jaguars in Arizona as it is now warm enough for them to make their home.

      I think there have been Jaguars in Arizona for a long time.
      I can remember seeing an E-type in Tempe 40 years ago.

  18. Indo Chimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shitting in the street, food that looks and smells exactly like their street shit. Open sewers. Corpses clogging the rivers and drinking water. They need more than AI. Let's start with ordinary intelligence first, and the work up from there. Hindu Chips.

    1. Re:Indo Chimps by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      C'mon, that's not fair. It's not ALL like that in Alabama.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. AI: Who else could be so cold as to enforce a chip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A cold, emotionless, soulless beast of a creature. AI.

    Of course. And the false prophet to cheer the AI on.

  20. Over 10 years ago we came to the conclusion by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    I was working with some profs on setting up a large research project preparing grant proposals (we already had 1 big funding source) to create an open source cheap farming robot to do organic farming.

    We had many practical ideas to begin with; many of which I still do not see being used out there... when the smart phone came out years later it seemed like it would have been perfect timing. Other university projects (especially MIT ones) were embarrassingly bad so we would have had something... we still would.

    Why did it stop? Because I killed it, we discussed this exact topic on how this would the destroy 3rd world faster than anybody could adapt to it. We guessed that other gardening and farming robot projects were just gimmicks for educational student projects with no practical applications because they too had similar concerns.

    Farming robots can be made cheaply and hardware to control them gets cheaper and easier to access every year - only the software holds us back and once done...

    You don't have to completely replace the humans, just make the weakest a little weaker for a damaging period of time. It also doesn't have to be super cheap-- just enough to drive the market down so substance farmers are not able to make anything extra to live on after feeding themselves and that has been done temporarily to economies where a nation dumps excess food into another market; or well, how donated clothing and kill whole economies as their fragile sweat shops go broke when they have months or years of super cheap clothes given to them... or NGOs and their contractors displacing the local rebuilding labor force...

    No, I'm not giving away any of our good ideas as examples. Somebody else can do that; hopefully LATER after more people wake up to the impending problems. BTW, these issues have been around since the industrial revolution and largely ignored because the big problems were externalized for other people to deal with the transition (and saying everybody has to become educated out of their old jobs and blaming them for not making that transition is naive. As if we even have the same number of necessary jobs existing in the 1st place... we don't.) What is going to happen is that people won't be so ignorant and as able to close their eyes because of how fast this is coming to everybody... plus the fact we have too many people and not enough jobs to invent based upon an economy of infinite growth that has reached peak resources already.

    1. Re:Over 10 years ago we came to the conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I call BS. Building a farming robot that actually works is very difficult. Also, most countries in Africa/Asia will always be basket case countries. If people are too lazy to dig toilets and get cholera from drinking their own sewage, then there is no real hope for them.

    2. Re:Over 10 years ago we came to the conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you oh savior of humanity. Now, would you like the other foot to yank on?

  21. Not only a challenge for developing world by Camembert · · Score: 1

    Many jobs will gradually require less people due to machine learning. Often it can support human specialists with analytical lookup work that woukd be done otherwise by people.
    I have young twin children and I sometimes wonder what direction they should grow their capabilities to have a happy life with an interesting job.
    I think that tasks like setting up a communication or marketing campaign will not immediately be replaced, and having an enterpreneurial attitude will be useful too, but difficult to make predictions...

  22. The correct URL for the article !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After another 30-50 years when we finally have robotics and AI, we simply won't need workers any more. Robots will do the job of all but a few of the working class, and AI will do the job of all but a few of the middle class

    If we combine Robots with AI, it would supplant even the toppest 0.001% elite echelon class.

    TFA (on https://www.bloomberg.com/view... ) has this one sentence:

    "... governments need to fund the AI education of their best and brightest students ..."

    In other words, the dumbfucks will no longer have any place in the future world

  23. We're all screwed by TJHook3r · · Score: 1

    The only people to do well are the AI owners but what makes you think things will get that far? People won't sit idly as jobs disappear.

    1. Re: We're all screwed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. They can riot... And be killed.

    2. Re:We're all screwed by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Sure they will. Look at 2007-8.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  24. China will make the AI robots by aberglas · · Score: 1

    Now that "Made in" means "China", they have the factories. They are already using more and more robots. There is a huge demand for robots in China. So there will be lots of opportunities for Chinese AI companies.

    Once you outsource manufacturing, you also outsource manufacturing technologies.

    1. Re:China will make the AI robots by RandCraw · · Score: 1

      There's an even bigger demand for robots where labor is expensive.

      If a developed country can build its widgets locally, it can avoid many costs that come with manufacturing remotely where labor is cheap: lower shipping costs, shorter time delays, less dependency on other governments and their dysfunctions, etc. When you control your own manufacturing (via local robots), you can more readily redesign and tailor your widgets to better serve the needs & interests of local customers. Eventually, all economies will be local, or at worst, regional. Why ship finished products long distances if you can get them made nearby? That's something that will become possible once labor costs fall to zero.

      The other constraints to local manufacturing are the availability and cost of raw materials, the cost to dispose of factory chaff (pollution), and the cost of power. With the likely rise of cheap solar, power may no longer be in short supply, but the first two desiderata will shape the choice of manufacturing locales for a long time yet. In transition, those countries willing to shit where they eat will keep their factories. But once dirty manufacturing processes can be cleaned up, they'll be free to relocate anywhere.

      As the OP suggests, the workers in economies that depend on the export of cheap labor (e.g. China and India) will be devastated if they lose their work to robots. Not only with upward mobility cease, but the jobs themself will go poof by the hundreds of millions, with no place for unskilled human workers to go but down.

    2. Re:China will make the AI robots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Robots need engineers to make, install and manage. Chinese robot engineers are becoming more numerous and certainly cheaper than western ones. And they speak Manderin, which nicely limits interactions with the west.

  25. AI Could Devastate the Developing World by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    AI Could Devastate the World

    ftfy

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  26. Re:goddamn by bobby · · Score: 1

    You know, that kind of reminds me of my reaction to seeing all the tabloid and magazine articles about the British royal family in my American supermarket checkout. I wouldn't buy a magazine about the royal family if I were British FFS. I don't see why anybody cares about them. But evidently people do.

    So here we [have] an article about the impact of technology on poor people and you have exactly the same reaction: why would anybody care about these people? I can only answer the same way: it may be mystifying to you, but evidently people do.

    Because for many reasons, anyone could become a poor person.

  27. Rubbish as it was over 100 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just rubbish. They said the same things about the Industrial Revolution. It was going to cause the world to become unemployed. People would starve to death, etc. etc. etc.

    And yet the world is far better off. All of this crap has one thing in common. Not a single specific example of how it will destroy the world, just more ramblings. Sounds like the same nonsense that Marx stated to me. But then again I doubt 1% of people reading this even have a clue to history and can comprehend this. The sad thing is that the fools that listen to this will try to stop further advancements in learning in the U.S. while Russia, China, and others will advance and surpass the U.S. and leave the country in a poorer situation. Now THAT WILL be very costly to those living in the free world.

    1. Re:Rubbish as it was over 100 years ago. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      Overall consumption kept pace with per worker productivity.

      Unfortunately per worked productivity is nearly unbounded yet consumption is constrained by natural resources.

    2. Re:Rubbish as it was over 100 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your arguement is basically "In the past, when x (masively disruptive technology) happened, y (more prosperity) was the result. Therefore this will *always* happen in the future".

    3. Re:Rubbish as it was over 100 years ago. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Now characterize the opposing argument...it's chicken little.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  28. Every Six Months by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    ... on average, I estimate (and maybe even estimate badly, but that's my guess) something else is claiming the underdeveloped countries are in danger from X and we must therefore give them money Y.

    It's not exactly like clockwork, but more like the tides versus a clock. Not regular, but repeated.

    1. Re:Every Six Months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and we must therefore give them money Y.

      Sorry but you are making that up. No mention "money giving because of whatever" in TFA.

      Anyway, this can be repeated ad nauseum. No money will be given no matter the claim, so it's a non issue. Have you given any? Thought so.

    2. Re:Every Six Months by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No money will be given no matter the claim, so it's a non issue.

      Ain't that the truth. 1st World doesn't even look after its own - see Puerto Rico for an example.

  29. Use AI? FUCK YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FUCK YOU

  30. EJACULATED AI INTO MY OWN ANUS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    compile me now you fucker

  31. India and Africa can fuck each other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking fucks.

  32. china has manufacturing with smog and dumpping by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    china has manufacturing with smog and dumping.
    Shipping can pull things back and with no labor costs they will just have no safety to play with.

  33. 'human-centered service industries' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slaves?

  34. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'd all be better off without the "developing" world. They've been "developing" for decades. They're still not "developed", and never will be.

  35. Re: AI: Who else could be so cold as to enforce a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least it won't get angry and commit global scale genocide by means of a flood. Quite happy with emotionless.

  36. Translation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Don't go into production and undercut our salaries! That's what we do with the US, we did it first!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  37. BeauHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come out of the closet!

  38. Chinatown has smoked dumpling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    smog and dumping

    For smoked dumpling, go to the nearest friendly Chinatown

    Yummy !

  39. Why only developing world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why only developing world ., There is another version of this ., A relatively inexperienced, but smart worker in a developing economy with these very powerful artificial intelligence-enabled tools will be able to compete with a much more experienced worker in the developed World.

  40. Kai-Fu Lee MIA by epine · · Score: 1

    In the version I'm seeing, the Bloomberg attributes the piece to Michael Schuman (credited as "the author of The Miracle: The Epic Story of Asia's Quest for Wealth and Confucius and the World He Created").

    I see no reference to Kai-Fu Lee at all.

    Upside: superior click-bait.

    Downside: not actually associated with the article.

  41. Nah by thunderclees · · Score: 1

    Perhaps turnabout is fair play?
    Besides, any country that has nuclear weapons and a space program should not be considered a developing country.

  42. FINALLY !!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI will ensure that there will be no HB1 visa holders in America again. Also no chimps. "chimp chimp !!"

  43. Inequality by bluegutang · · Score: 1

    There is an important point here, but it's not limited to the developing world.

    AI (to the extent that it works) will drastically increase the productivity of people who own AI, while not affecting the productivity of people without AI.

    This means a drastic increase in inequality - both between countries and within a single country.

    And to the extent that some people are entirely unable to compete with AI (for example, a truck driver, whose only current job skill is image processing, i.e. being able to stay within a lane while driving, which AI might soon be able to do equally well and for cheaper), they will be worse off in absolute as well as relative terms.

    Overall wealth will be much higher - but the average person is likely to be worse off. That is, unless a universal basic income is instituted.

  44. c6gunner IMPERSONATING me again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    c6gunner your FAKEname's on a post impersonating me & worse is you altering /. user's words https://linux.slashdot.org/com... as I challenged you to show you do better work and you can't after you tried to mock me you hypocrite LYING loser https://linux.slashdot.org/com... .

    * You're online FAKENAME trash c6gunner & a childish dishonest punk.

    PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH TOO saying what I don't on spectre/meltdown https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... & I haven't had a MacOS X version recompiled for me yet (I don't own a Mac but I have a friend who does & can code (to a good extent, good enough to load FreePascal 3.0.4 + patches & Lazarus 1.8.2 IDE for it in 64-bit to do so but he is a BUSY guy, just waiting on him for it to do this as a FAVOR to me...))

    APK

    P.S.=> Impossible to deny FACT of your FAKEname (for your FAKE wasted lie of a so-called life) on that 1st post link above you unbelievable loser... apk

  45. NIMBYs object to victory gardens by tepples · · Score: 2

    Why can't the first world also go back to subsistence farming?

    As Opportunist mentioned, the population has grown past the carrying capacity of subsistence farming to a level that only high-yield farming methods can sustain. But even local farming to supplement high-yield farming is a non-starter so long as NIMBYs remain unwilling to repeal zoning ordinances that prohibit urban dwellers from running a victory garden. Consider Oak Park, Michigan, which dropped misdemeanor charges against Julie Bass only after the city's threat against her vegetable garden made national news.

  46. They don't demand anything by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they're just going to ignore us. Same as we currently ignore people suffering all around the world. Seriously, go google what's going on in Yemen right now. Or Flint, MI's water. Or the 45,000 people who die of preventable diseases in America every year. It's easy. Out of sight out of mind.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:They don't demand anything by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Agreed. They've already started. Gated communities anyone? The rich are increasingly protecting themselves. Problem is the French tried that. Before the French revolution the rich aristocrats all hired private guards. They were mostly foreigners without any skin in the local political system. The trouble was, that when 3000 angry revolutionaries showed up at the door, the guards said "Fuck this shit!" and left or hunkered down like the idiots at the Bastille did. Eventually the angry populace stormed those jails and palatial guard posts and dragged the occupants out to be hung from a lamp post or stuffed into a guillotine. The revolution was a complicated mess, mostly, and it wasn't perfect (their leadership mostly sucked and they had some collectivism poisoning them quite often). However, after the revolution ended pay went up for damn near everyone but the rich folks. The theory is, they were a bit worried someone would drag their greedy ass out into the street and chop their deserving heads off. Personally, I believe nothing short of a similar event in this country will wake up the elites to the historical fact that no matter how many walls and guards you have, when the people come for you, they are going to wade through that shit like it was made of wet toilet paper. In a nation with huge levels of gun ownership... well... It's pretty clear that could get ugly in a hurry (like the founders intended).

    2. Re:They don't demand anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sooo this was a pro gun post?
      Haha

        (not in USA)

  47. Disrupting the 20th Century Development Model by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    In any case, the point I think the authors were making (the wrong article is linked so I can't easily verify it) is that AI will make it harder for developing nations to improve their economies, rather than making their current economies worse. So it's more a case of AI undermining evolutionary development than it being a revolution in itself.

    Agreed. Even before the recent cache of AI, there was a lot of concern that increasing industrial productivity (what a lot of folks refer to as Industry 4.0) driven by automation, additive manufacturing, robotics, big data, and AI, is disrupting the export-oriented economic development model that a lot of nations used to grow in the 20th century. Think Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and most recently China. The idea was you leverage cheap labor to work your way up from cheap, commodity exports to designing and manufacturing high tech goods. However, increased automation is eroding the cost advantage that cheap labor once had. Some might argue that China is the last country to be able to use this model - they brought a tremendous amount of cheap labor to the market that drastically warped the global system (I would argue for example that it killed Mexico's chance to use the same development route), and through various fiscal tactics and sheer scale, China was able to keep that cost advantage for much longer than most nations. Thus, by the time China moves on, the advances in manufacturing have basically left other developing nations few options. China speaking of which is aggressively advancing automation as well to ensure that the manufacturing base they've built does not shift to other, cheaper nations.

  48. Let's sabotage West for China's benefit by mi · · Score: 1

    So these countries are realizing the competition and have launched the PR campaign to shame the West into slowing down the AI adoption. It is "unethical", we are told, to use AI militarily. It is "unfair" to use it elsewhere.

    The motivation for groups and countries unable to do something advantageous to talk those who can out of it is understandable. But why would Slashdot be part of that PR campaign? I'd hope, the company at least profits from this, rather than doing their "useful idiots" part for free...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  49. What about the Brazil model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Far better than China's and India's. Only a fool would not cite Brazil as a model of development and ever strengthening institutions [the only country in the world currently undergoing an all-out war on corruption].

    That is the country of the near future.

    Ignorant imbeciles.

    1. Re:What about the Brazil model? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Every shithole has a 'war on corruption' when power changes hands. Hint: It's a war on the _old_ corruption. China is also currently undergoing an 'all-out war on corruption', Russia has just finished one. In America, our corrupt control both major political parties, so we can't even get one started.

      I did like that case of 99 cent bottles of Brazilian Rum I bought last time Brazil had a 'war on corruption' and crashed their currency, the current war is kicking out the winners of the last one, so not likely to repeat.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:What about the Brazil model? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did like that case of 99 cent bottles of Brazilian Rum I bought last time

      Man, I guess I have bad news for you. I think what you drank wasn't rum. But bloody hell if you did like it, that's what matters.

    3. Re:What about the Brazil model? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It was rum, pretty good rum.

      The lefties crashed the Brazilian currency when they were the ones 'fighting corruption'. There was a brief period where exporters got Brazilian products for almost nothing.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  50. Re:Superfaggot Kendall asserts more 100% bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, I expect he'll right in line after the "faggot" posters on /.

  51. News Flash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI isn't going to just replace manufacturing and low end tech jobs we outsource to other countries. It's going to replace the ones here too.

  52. Re:best thing we could do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has been proven over and over that the average African IQ is around 65.

    What, by some 'genius' on Stormfront ?

    Also the glaring grammatical errors in your post indicate that maybe you're projecting your own stupidity on to others, a common occurrence.

  53. Yes, yes it is by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    given the massive amount of automation we're currently doing. We're going to run out of work here. When that happens we either take care of people who do nothing or let them starve. If you do that in a country with an army you'll have wars. Big ones. They'll come to your house to take your stuff. Or you'll get conscripted into an army to do the taking. Meanwhile you'll have fascist dictatorships spring up when they promise food to the starving masses.

    You're talking about billions of people with nothing to lose and access to modern military weapons. That's not going to end well for anybody.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Yes, yes it is by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      given the massive amount of automation we're currently doing. We're going to run out of work here. When that happens we either take care of people who do nothing or let them starve. If you do that in a country with an army you'll have wars. Big ones. They'll come to your house to take your stuff. Or you'll get conscripted into an army to do the taking. Meanwhile you'll have fascist dictatorships spring up when they promise food to the starving masses. You're talking about billions of people with nothing to lose and access to modern military weapons. That's not going to end well for anybody.

      I keep hearing about the end of jobs yet when I look around I see no end of things that need to be done. What I hate about UBI is that it's something for nothing, which is never a good policy. If we're going to pay people, why not get something back? For example there are literally millions of lonely old people. Make them visit them and keep them company to qualify for UBI. Make them pick up litter or clean up graffiti. No end of tasks, just an unwillingness to ask something because it's easier to just write the check rather than make the world a better place.

    2. Re:Yes, yes it is by nasch · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing about the end of jobs yet when I look around I see no end of things that need to be done.

      The question is how long will there be enough jobs that people are willing to pay enough to get done?

      Make them visit them and keep them company to qualify for UBI. Make them pick up litter or clean up graffiti. No end of tasks, just an unwillingness to ask something because it's easier to just write the check rather than make the world a better place.

      Those are great ideas, and I'm sure there are many many more. Work that doesn't get done based on market forces, but would benefit society. I'd say it kills two birds with one stone too, because while leisure time is great, people also benefit from having something productive to do.

      If we could avoid a huge stigma of accepting one of these UBI jobs that would be great. I could see people with "normal" jobs looking down on the UBI people just as many do on people who use whatever food stamps are called now.

  54. Go for it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    on the historic data. We're talking the late 1800s and early 1900s. That was not, by all accounts, a good time to be alive. America in particular was trapped in a permanent Japan style depression. Pre WWI Europe was reeling from multiple violent revolutions and brewing more of them. And Post WWI Germany was a hell hole crushed by war reparations that led to the populace looking the other way for the Nazis. If you want to tell me that was good times comparable to the 50s, 60s and 70s and they hey day of Union labor you've got your work cut out for you. If you even want to convince me that it was anything other than the two World Wars that got our species out of that ruling class dominated rut you've got even more work to do (and maybe a doctoral thesis in history to be written).

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

      okay...
      first link:
      https://www.infoplease.com/us/...
      just look at the bit between 1850 to 1900... the numbers go up.

      This is the consumer price index
      https://www.minneapolisfed.org...

      Here is a book that goes through US wages from colonial times to 1928 or so:
      https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/...

      Go through it. No offense to you... but the idea you're pushing is wrong and you need to shine the light of objectivity on it. If you double down after it was proven wrong... well, that is on you.

      Don't be that guy. Look over the information and then concede.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  55. More Clickbiat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot's editors have gone to an all time low.

  56. Large English-speaking population? Funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> In the India model, a country combines a large English-speaking population...

    Is that supposed to be a joke? Nobody can understand them. They are speaking English?????

    1. Re:Large English-speaking population? Funny! by Seven+Spirals · · Score: 1

      Indian English is a recognized distinct dialect of English. It's hard to understand because the regional linguistics differ greatly from American favorite phonemes. Would have been nice if corporate America realized this before they sent all the call center jobs to India. Then again, companies like Dell have paid a price for their Indian misadventures after having to bring back call center jobs at great cost to themselves after a pitchfork rebellion by their incensed customers.

  57. Re:goddamn by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Maybe /., just like nostalgia, isn't what it used to be?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  58. Dang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess they will have to go back to doing the only thing we have to do to survive. "Reap what you sow."