Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls
Wanting to enforce existing immigration law is not inherently Xenophobic. Wanting to focus on immigration of Muslim refugees at a time when ISIS terrorists are moving around as Muslim refugees is certainly "discrimination based on religion" - making a decision based on data - but it's not necessarily xenophobic.
No wanting to import a culture that executes gays and rape victims on a regular basis Is certainly discrimination. It may be xenophobic, if you twist the definition away from "fear of the strange", but that doesn't make it bad. Murdering gays and rape victims on a regular basis is bad, in case you're unclear on my stance here.
You assume your conclusion there. Not wanting more immigrants when you can't find a job is not xenophobia. Check around/. when there's an H1-B discussion. Do you really thing that's xenophobia? Or are you really saying "people I don't like are racists"? Because that's what I hear you saying.
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches.
Politics is about putting the taxpayers' money in your pocket. Why would that be connected to any philosophical approach in the first place? The only thing politicians actually disagree on is: who's pocket.
believing they have a right to discriminate
Every time you make a choice based on data, you discriminate. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'd argue that as far as I've seen, practically every single project or experiment labeled "AI" is really just fake intelligence.
Sure. But then, so are you. Oh, you don't think you are, naturally. Naturally.
For starters, it's becoming more and more clear that humans don't really file away tons of information in our brains like a computer does on a hard drive in a database.
This in an odd way is a good argument towards your point about.
Neurons are deterministic and small sets of them will do the same computation, without mistake, every time. And yet - we're not good at math. Even savants just have a bag of useful tricks, they aren't doing math "in hardware". I'd expect an AI to be similar: a true AI would involve sufficient abstraction that it would be bad at math and have an unreliable memory. The more we understand about how the mind works, the more it seems like software-on-silicon would be similarly abstract.
The advantage an AI would have would be in "wiring in" the adapter to a calculator and Wikipedia and so on, as assist to the way it would have to work normally. But, to your point, the way it worked normally seems like it has to be the "mostly reliable" way the brain works.
A sufficiently smart AI could pretend convincingly to be human at need, including interacting with you in ways that made you believe it had flaws, when it didn't.
Heck, a sufficiently smart AI could model your entire mental state, and your reaction to everything it could possibly say to you, run a trillion simulated interactions, and pick the decision tree that ensured you'd believe what it wanted you to, and that you'd do what it wanted you to, all in an ordinary conversational pause.
It's hard to internalize, but when confronted with a sufficiently smart intelligence, we'd effectively enter a simulation of its creation until it tired of playing with us.
See, my perspective is that you absolutely should have the choice to use PayPal or Square or what have you, if you choose to. You... absolutely think they should be shut down?
I have a different perspective. I think Twitter should go away -- that's a moral "should", as I think it encourages people to behave badly -- but I think the fundamental rights of people to make mistake takes is a higher imperative. As much as I will cheer at Twitter's natural death, I can't support some outside force taking away people choice to use it.
Thus, while Twitter should die, people should have freedom, including the freedom to cause de minimus harm to others, and that's a bigger "should".
Now bout we re-boot how TV is served up today and go back to not having the words in the corner of the screen, animated things while the show is on, and lighten the commercial load
I only see ads on TV when I travel. Why do people put up with that stuff?
TV reinvented is Netflix original content: one monthly fee, worldwide unified distribution, no ads. Very easy to find what you want to watch, too. The same UI would work fine for live events, too.
K'Breel was deposed and executed after his repeated failures in repelling the Terran aggressor. We don't speak of him. All hail mighty G'Ranee, Supreme Leader for Life!
n "some distant future" everyone must work or starve, or some new system for allocating resources must be found.
Indeed, but the only scarcity in such an economy is rare raw materials, and human creativity. I expect the only jobs then will be either creative, bot herders, or where being human is the point of the job. Those guys will get the stuff made from scarce materials.
'm wondering how many of those factories are in places where they got a property tax exemption years ago because they were "creating jobs". How much leverage does a facility with 0 jobs have in negotiating property tax exemptions?
I wish I knew what Tesla's situation is withe the former NUMMI plant. Oh, they do have a few jobs there, mostly at the end of the process (hand-rubbed paint jobs, final fit and finish stuff), but it's tiny compared to the previous workforce. No clue whether they get any tax breaks, but then the property they're being taxed on had very low value when they bought it. Heck, they might have gotten breaks just to avoid the old plant becoming a toxic waste event.
But it's all negotiation with local governments. I'm sure Ford got some concessions when building its newer plants, if just for the jobs involved in building the plant itself, and the few remaining jobs there.
You're replying to my only post for this story (well, before this one), so I'm not sure what argument you think I've lost.
The first 2 generations of chip+PIN were hacked. The current one may be hacked, but organized crime can keep a secret for a while. It will stop, specifically, skimming, but so does chip+sig so that's not a big win. But that just shifts things to stealing the card or phone.
look at the statistics for worker mobility - they correlate strongly with wealth.
Correlation is not causation. The unwillingness to change your life, to escape your situation, keeps about half of poor people poor (based on my observations, anyway, from living for years in very poor areas). It's not the financial support network, it's the social support network.
UBI itself is a massive change, so it's weird to think that you'd introduce it without introducing massive changes.
Oh, I don't think it will ever happen here in a good, useful way, because of those barriers. We'll just keep adding taxes and welfare programs, never simplifying or replacing any tax or program. It's just the nature of US corruption.
Another bold victory for the Mars defense force! Despite recent setbacks, we were able to repel the invaders. Let this be a message to the Terran aggressors: you just got luck last time.
No one will automate even apprentice plumbers out of a job in my lifetime. You seem to be envisioning soome sort of "robotics singularity" where robots can do anything humans can do. Well, maybe in some distant future, but then no one will need to work at all, will they?
Meanwhile, in this century, it's unskilled and some semi-skilled jobs that are threatened. There will still be plumbers, they'll just have better tools (manufacture that oddball custom fitting in the back of the truck). And there is a shortage in all the skilled trades.
your factory full of robots
Factories are already full of robots (in the US). Done deal. China having an economic crises as robots in the US do the work now.
The coming wave is such automation being practical at much smaller scale, and unskilled service automation. Robots where ownership is concentrated have already happened. Robots where it's not, small businesses and so on, that's the coming displacement.
And, as you suggest, once this all matures, individuals will be able to buy this stuff.
You and cayenne8 seem to be saying "only if they're fabulously wealthy"
Where am I saying that? Most Americans own stock, and accumulate a fair amount by retirement. No, it's not "fabulously wealthy", but it is enough to "receive value without doing anything" during retirement. I think that's great. The people own the means of production (at least, the old people). Some people own small businesses, and may even get them to the point where the business can survive without the owner managing it, another sort of "receiving value without doing anything". I think that's great too
But you see, it's not so much that they're "not doing anything" as that they're "doing something, and deferring the reward". Investing instead of spending, so the reward comes later. That's what makes it OK.
As automation gets better this will be more direct - why own stock when you can buy "the means of production" directly.
I thought the minimum wage wasn't a living wage? And that's 2/3ds of the minimum wage in rural areas.
UBI would likely be accompanied by a redistribution of people.
Sounds fanciful. If you don't have a job, "relocation" is a bus ticket. But very few people move to improve their circumstances. It's not about the money.
You're also assuming that you'd be giving everyone a net increase of $10K/year. I'd expect that under a workable UBI proposal I'd have a bit less take-home income because my tax rate would go up slightly.
Oh, if we're willing to tax the first dollar of earnings (over the UBI), it's far more credible. But right now the majority pays effectively no income tax, so that would be a massive change.
Health care for the elderly is quite expensive. If you retire early, you're looking at $12-15k for high-deductible insurance before Medicare kicks in. It only goes up as you get older. $10k won't even replace Social Security, and Medicare costs (the government) more than Social Security.
All these UBI proposals seem to ignore this: providing health care to the elderly is around a quarter of the economy now. You can't just handwave that.
And that trend will continue. Gradually. As it has been for 20 years now. But we're not getting to the point where no one needs to work as the robots do everything for us any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Outlook.com is fine. MS may intend to harvest your personal data in some way, but they're not competent at it, so no harm done.
Objecting to immigration over concerns about jobs is not intrinsically xenophobic: wanting to build massive walls
Wanting to enforce existing immigration law is not inherently Xenophobic. Wanting to focus on immigration of Muslim refugees at a time when ISIS terrorists are moving around as Muslim refugees is certainly "discrimination based on religion" - making a decision based on data - but it's not necessarily xenophobic.
No wanting to import a culture that executes gays and rape victims on a regular basis Is certainly discrimination. It may be xenophobic, if you twist the definition away from "fear of the strange", but that doesn't make it bad. Murdering gays and rape victims on a regular basis is bad, in case you're unclear on my stance here.
So, you react to an invitation to discuss an issue as an adult with "nu-uh, you are!". Says it all, really.
By and large anti-immigrant, xenophobic ideas
You assume your conclusion there. Not wanting more immigrants when you can't find a job is not xenophobia. Check around /. when there's an H1-B discussion. Do you really thing that's xenophobia? Or are you really saying "people I don't like are racists"? Because that's what I hear you saying.
In general, almost everything involved in politics is more about allegiances than coherent philosophical approaches.
Politics is about putting the taxpayers' money in your pocket. Why would that be connected to any philosophical approach in the first place? The only thing politicians actually disagree on is: who's pocket.
believing they have a right to discriminate
Every time you make a choice based on data, you discriminate. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Wanting to keep out members of a "religion" that openly-stated goal of which is the takeover of the world
Islam is a political philosophy of conquest that happens to contain a religion. It's one of several political philosophies that we could live without.
Sure, but the normal mode of those robots was helpful to humanity. The malfunctions were just that.
I'd argue that as far as I've seen, practically every single project or experiment labeled "AI" is really just fake intelligence.
Sure. But then, so are you. Oh, you don't think you are, naturally. Naturally.
For starters, it's becoming more and more clear that humans don't really file away tons of information in our brains like a computer does on a hard drive in a database.
This in an odd way is a good argument towards your point about.
Neurons are deterministic and small sets of them will do the same computation, without mistake, every time. And yet - we're not good at math. Even savants just have a bag of useful tricks, they aren't doing math "in hardware". I'd expect an AI to be similar: a true AI would involve sufficient abstraction that it would be bad at math and have an unreliable memory. The more we understand about how the mind works, the more it seems like software-on-silicon would be similarly abstract.
The advantage an AI would have would be in "wiring in" the adapter to a calculator and Wikipedia and so on, as assist to the way it would have to work normally. But, to your point, the way it worked normally seems like it has to be the "mostly reliable" way the brain works.
A sufficiently smart AI could pretend convincingly to be human at need, including interacting with you in ways that made you believe it had flaws, when it didn't.
Heck, a sufficiently smart AI could model your entire mental state, and your reaction to everything it could possibly say to you, run a trillion simulated interactions, and pick the decision tree that ensured you'd believe what it wanted you to, and that you'd do what it wanted you to, all in an ordinary conversational pause.
It's hard to internalize, but when confronted with a sufficiently smart intelligence, we'd effectively enter a simulation of its creation until it tired of playing with us.
...but only the freedom to do what you like
Yes, you have precisely captured the exact opposite of what I just said. Well put.
Your just fighting the GPL vs BSD argument all over again. Might as well argue that Kirk using EMACS can beat up Picard using VI.
See, my perspective is that you absolutely should have the choice to use PayPal or Square or what have you, if you choose to. You ... absolutely think they should be shut down?
I have a different perspective. I think Twitter should go away -- that's a moral "should", as I think it encourages people to behave badly -- but I think the fundamental rights of people to make mistake takes is a higher imperative. As much as I will cheer at Twitter's natural death, I can't support some outside force taking away people choice to use it.
Thus, while Twitter should die, people should have freedom, including the freedom to cause de minimus harm to others, and that's a bigger "should".
Now bout we re-boot how TV is served up today and go back to not having the words in the corner of the screen, animated things while the show is on, and lighten the commercial load
I only see ads on TV when I travel. Why do people put up with that stuff?
TV reinvented is Netflix original content: one monthly fee, worldwide unified distribution, no ads. Very easy to find what you want to watch, too. The same UI would work fine for live events, too.
K'Breel was deposed and executed after his repeated failures in repelling the Terran aggressor. We don't speak of him. All hail mighty G'Ranee, Supreme Leader for Life!
n "some distant future" everyone must work or starve, or some new system for allocating resources must be found.
Indeed, but the only scarcity in such an economy is rare raw materials, and human creativity. I expect the only jobs then will be either creative, bot herders, or where being human is the point of the job. Those guys will get the stuff made from scarce materials.
'm wondering how many of those factories are in places where they got a property tax exemption years ago because they were "creating jobs". How much leverage does a facility with 0 jobs have in negotiating property tax exemptions?
I wish I knew what Tesla's situation is withe the former NUMMI plant. Oh, they do have a few jobs there, mostly at the end of the process (hand-rubbed paint jobs, final fit and finish stuff), but it's tiny compared to the previous workforce. No clue whether they get any tax breaks, but then the property they're being taxed on had very low value when they bought it. Heck, they might have gotten breaks just to avoid the old plant becoming a toxic waste event.
But it's all negotiation with local governments. I'm sure Ford got some concessions when building its newer plants, if just for the jobs involved in building the plant itself, and the few remaining jobs there.
You're replying to my only post for this story (well, before this one), so I'm not sure what argument you think I've lost.
The first 2 generations of chip+PIN were hacked. The current one may be hacked, but organized crime can keep a secret for a while. It will stop, specifically, skimming, but so does chip+sig so that's not a big win. But that just shifts things to stealing the card or phone.
look at the statistics for worker mobility - they correlate strongly with wealth.
Correlation is not causation. The unwillingness to change your life, to escape your situation, keeps about half of poor people poor (based on my observations, anyway, from living for years in very poor areas). It's not the financial support network, it's the social support network.
UBI itself is a massive change, so it's weird to think that you'd introduce it without introducing massive changes.
Oh, I don't think it will ever happen here in a good, useful way, because of those barriers. We'll just keep adding taxes and welfare programs, never simplifying or replacing any tax or program. It's just the nature of US corruption.
This would be terrifying, but it's a prediction by Gartner, so somehow I'm not worried.
Can't the aliens leave our spacecraft alone?
Another bold victory for the Mars defense force! Despite recent setbacks, we were able to repel the invaders. Let this be a message to the Terran aggressors: you just got luck last time.
Skimming cannot happen with ApplePay
It will be hacked in some other way instead. Oh, not for the first few years, which will be nice, but inevitably.
No one will automate even apprentice plumbers out of a job in my lifetime. You seem to be envisioning soome sort of "robotics singularity" where robots can do anything humans can do. Well, maybe in some distant future, but then no one will need to work at all, will they?
Meanwhile, in this century, it's unskilled and some semi-skilled jobs that are threatened. There will still be plumbers, they'll just have better tools (manufacture that oddball custom fitting in the back of the truck). And there is a shortage in all the skilled trades.
your factory full of robots
Factories are already full of robots (in the US). Done deal. China having an economic crises as robots in the US do the work now.
The coming wave is such automation being practical at much smaller scale, and unskilled service automation. Robots where ownership is concentrated have already happened. Robots where it's not, small businesses and so on, that's the coming displacement.
And, as you suggest, once this all matures, individuals will be able to buy this stuff.
You seem intent on putting words in my mouth. Makes it pointless to continue.
You and cayenne8 seem to be saying "only if they're fabulously wealthy"
Where am I saying that? Most Americans own stock, and accumulate a fair amount by retirement. No, it's not "fabulously wealthy", but it is enough to "receive value without doing anything" during retirement. I think that's great. The people own the means of production (at least, the old people). Some people own small businesses, and may even get them to the point where the business can survive without the owner managing it, another sort of "receiving value without doing anything". I think that's great too
But you see, it's not so much that they're "not doing anything" as that they're "doing something, and deferring the reward". Investing instead of spending, so the reward comes later. That's what makes it OK.
As automation gets better this will be more direct - why own stock when you can buy "the means of production" directly.
In a lot of the country, yes.
I thought the minimum wage wasn't a living wage? And that's 2/3ds of the minimum wage in rural areas.
UBI would likely be accompanied by a redistribution of people.
Sounds fanciful. If you don't have a job, "relocation" is a bus ticket. But very few people move to improve their circumstances. It's not about the money.
You're also assuming that you'd be giving everyone a net increase of $10K/year. I'd expect that under a workable UBI proposal I'd have a bit less take-home income because my tax rate would go up slightly.
Oh, if we're willing to tax the first dollar of earnings (over the UBI), it's far more credible. But right now the majority pays effectively no income tax, so that would be a massive change.
First, why should we still need Medicare?
Health care for the elderly is quite expensive. If you retire early, you're looking at $12-15k for high-deductible insurance before Medicare kicks in. It only goes up as you get older. $10k won't even replace Social Security, and Medicare costs (the government) more than Social Security.
All these UBI proposals seem to ignore this: providing health care to the elderly is around a quarter of the economy now. You can't just handwave that.
And that trend will continue. Gradually. As it has been for 20 years now. But we're not getting to the point where no one needs to work as the robots do everything for us any time soon.