But there are a lot of really good reasons to doubt that pattern will happen this time.
Then what are those reasons? I don't see them myself. Instead, I see scapegoating of automation. The developed world is experiencing massive labor competition from the rest of the world and those developed world societies have the habit of punishing the act of employment in a variety of unpleasant and costly ways.
So even in the absence of any significant improvement in automation, we would still see jobs lost to automation just because someone made workers too expensive to compete even with the stuff that wasn't competitive in the past.
In today's world of increasing automation, how many of those jobs are essentially going to be makework? Or part of marketing efforts that try to convince people they need something frivolous that they don't have? Is the current economic system so inevitable or desirable that those things are preferable to just letting people stay home?
The past was also a world of increasing automation. It turned out that automation made human labor more valuable rather than less.
As to makework, who will employ people to do nothing rather than to do something with at least a little return? I suppose it does lead to the situation where I could be getting paid by thousands of employers of my own construction to surf the web and taint SN from the comfort of my couch in my basement lair.
The point is we as a society let them get away with murder in service to that narrative.
If it's actual murder rather than imaginary murder, then there are laws for that. You have to have some sort of intent to kill and of course, the actual killing of a person to go with that. OTOH, if you just want to kill rich people without regard for due diligence or law, then that is murder.
Again, the claim isn't debatable. Any honest economist will tell you $12/hr isn't enough for those things. Take note of what I choose to list. It's all things that relate to long term economic security. Again, go do some googling. Read the fark politics tab for a few weeks. It'll do you some good to find out how awful the world really is for 90% of the human race.
There are several flaws with your argument. First, $12 per hour is quite a bit of money especially when coupled with other income. At full time, that's $24k per year which is plenty for the various "long term economic security" things you claim to care about.
Second, you ignore that the items you claimed to care about are artificially inflated in price. Is it Uber's job to fix that? Is Uber supposed to pay whatever cost the bleeding hearts of our societies inflate a "long term economic security" thing to?
And read fark in order to learn anything? You are retarded.
Finally, as to the 90% of humanity which you claim to care about, I note once again that their lot is improving and at a rapid rate. Better is better, right?
Um.... wow. You really missed the whole point on the dark age. I didn't say we _were_ in a new dark age, I said we were heading for one. What caused the Dark Ages was the 1% of the time preventing any advancement in human civilization to prevent them from being ousted from power by widespread societal changes.
What caused the Dark Ages was the collapse of the Roman Empire (the similar collapse of the Han empire in China didn't help), destruction of its infrastructure, and the end of the continental trade networks. That's completely at odds with what the real world is doing. We're building vast infrastructure on a global scale, there is no part of the world that doesn't benefit from global trade in some way, and everyone's life is improving. Yet why this talk of imaginary dark ages?
Basically rampant conservativism.
Your ideological blindness is showing.
Please stop. Really. Please. Stop.
Please heed your own advice. I think there are few as need of listening to themselves as you.
The phrase you're looking for is "Job Creators". That's what the 1% call the social contract. It's a different slant on the narrative (a right wing one as opposed to a left wing one) but it's effectively the same base narrative. To wit: If you work hard and play by the rules you'll do good.
Sorry, you're the only one here spinning tales. I merely pointed out that your "narrative" was deeply broken. I don't care who you plan to blame for it.
That they're not following the contract is readily demonstrable. Again, this has nothing to do with reality. This is a narrative. Uber pays about $12/hr with no benefits after accounting for the cost of a vehicle. Less if you're city's median income is lower. You can't buy a house, pay for a child's college or save for retirement with that. You can google the statistics to prove that. I can't be arsed right now.
Uber doesn't follow an imaginary contract by imaginary villains in an imaginary narrative? Do tell!
As to your other claim, money is still fungible, even if it comes from Uber. You can indeed buy a house, pay for a child's education, or save for retirement with that money just like any other money you happen to earn.
The point is we're being fed a load of old bull. We're being tricked. The gains the working class made (and fought and died for) are being taken away and we're gradually slipping into a new dark age. Thanks a lot.
A "dark age" which, let us note, involves virtually the entire world becoming wealthier and more educated as a result.
Instead focus on how they break the perceived social contract between employee and employer. If you worked hard and played by the rules your employer would take care of you and let you have an OK life and die reasonably content.
There's several things to note here. First, I doubt Uber perceives things the same way. If they perceive the "perceived social contract" differently, then what's to say that your perception of it is better than theirs? I doubt most people involved with Uber think of it as a cradle to grave service and hence, don't perceive this alleged contract. Maybe you shouldn't either?
Nor has this perceived contract existed for the entirety of humanity's existence. I feel this is just like claiming that Valentine's Day should be a second Christmas just because someone wants presents and Christmas is pretty far off in early February. It's an arbitrary changing of the rules to advantage some group at the expense of another.
Third, I don't grant that most of the people involved with providing rides in Uber are employees and hence, subject to such a contract. For a key example, there's no obligation to provide Uber rides. That obligation to work is a key aspect of employment. Seriously, what real job allows you to just drop employment right now and then resume employment at doing the same thing eight months later without telling the employer at any point that you're doing that?
Fourth, why do you think that Uber isn't following this "contract" well enough? Getting paid good money to provide rides sounds exactly like a bit of "take care of you". Maybe if these people want an OK life and to die content, then they should use the funds that they get in exchange for providing ridership services to do that themselves?
Finally, the ultimate irrationality of this contract is evident in the assumption that providing such things is something that an employer would be competent at. You know, the same people who so often have trouble seeing past the next quarter? I'm just not feeling it.
"Average them all off" is far superior to what you pull here.
At best, we will be saving the drunks at the cost of some good drivers.
Good drivers get killed by drunk drivers too. And it's worth noting here that a remarkable number of deaths in the US are associated with driving under the influence of alcohol.
In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
We also have here the fallacy of the excluded middle. There's no reason that sufficiently safe drivers can't continue to drive and the US has a large pool of high mileage drivers who have collectively reduced the accident rate to 11 deaths and 1850 crashes per billion miles.
Now, I noticed in the months ago thread where I first mentioned these US safety numbers, my following observation:
The problem here is two-fold. First, we have a very low accident rate in the US. There is not that much room for improvement. If you look at the proposed benefits of self-driving vehicles, you find that they speak of highway driving a lot. That is already among the safest sort of driving.
Further, both cargo and taxi driving are high priority targets. It would replace the safest human drivers, the ones who do it as a profession.
There could be a period of time when automated driving makes things worse due to replacing the safest human driving and human rather than the worst.
Sorry, I don't see replacement of the worst drivers as being a serious issue. Even wholesale replacement of all human drivers would still gain from getting the worst drivers off the street and thus would have somewhat weaker safety thresholds to meet than the best human drivers and still come out a net gain for safety.
The real problem is that some implementation proposals of self-driving vehicles looks to replace the safest drivers first not the worst drivers. For example, if you replace all truck drivers with less safe self-driving vehicles while doing nothing about the drivers who generate most accidents, you will see an increase in vehicular accidents and deaths.
Therefore, Autopilot needs to be better then all humans before it can be said to be totally safe. If not totally safe, then it shouldn't be on the road.
Wow, that's a lousy argument. I disagree on the first assertion on the grounds that it is meaningless semantics twisting. And I certainly disagree on the leap of logic that claims we should take an important tool off the road on the grounds that it can't meet some absurd standard of operation which people don't have to come even remotely close to meeting.
That second point bears repeating. There are drivers who are much safer than the average driver (and drive enough that overall accident rates per mile are extremely low) who in turn are much safer than the drivers who cause most of the auto accidents in the US (eg, drunk drivers and other such incompetents).
Only three reason people are motivated to do anything. Money, Friendship or Prestige (Some other self interest). Trump doesn't look all that friendly so...
Terrible argument since motivation is less important than outcome. Sure, if someone is promising something because it furthers their goal of destroying the world, then sure, I'm concerned. But your rule of motivation supposedly applies to everyone not just Trump. Why does Trump's motivations matter more than anyone else's? He's not the only one running for US president, for example.
Why would only 500 million people die? Anyone, willing to start a nuclear war with China while expecting the usual retaliatory nuclear strikes, and which has the number of warheads that the US has, will probably be aware of the future strategic problem (from their aggressor point of view) of leaving lots of survivors in China.
You answered your own question: it's a division of power thing.
Having a new entity that tests for psychopathy will mean a redistribution of power, some of it going to this new entity. So it really is just another form of accountability aka another thing to work around.
I don't buy it. My view is that the testing is useless except as an arbitrary exercise of power. If you're going to do things like that, why not do something useful with that entity, like passing laws or judging breaches of the law (the traditional two divisions of power common to most democracies)?
See, you act like what the other AC propose and what you think works are different things and that one is better or worse. To a psychopath, they aren't, and they'll both work just as well or not.
Again, I don't buy this. I'm not a psychopath and hence, don't share this alleged equivalence.
Bitcoin depends on artificial scarcity for value- never a good thing.
All currency and money equivalents depend on scarcity else there's no point to the currency in either of the roles usually assigned to it (medium of exchange and store of value). Further, the scarcity of bitcoins is quite natural, arising inherently from the Bitcoin system.
Doesn't matter. If the power being watched is great enough, psychopaths will appear to try and take it, no matter how big or how many obstructions you put in the way. That's the point of great power.
Which is why division of power happens. And what again was the point of testing for psychopathy as the original AC proposed? That's just another thing to work around. At least, accountability works better than that.
Safety is the single worst reason to throw away a tried and tested basic design that is fantastically safe and replace it with a much more complicated and new system.
Zero deaths in any form of transportation is a laudable goal. Zero deaths in every industry is a laudable goal. Zero deaths total is a laudable goal.
No, it's not due to opportunity cost. Sure, if spending a little money saves a bunch of lives, that's a laudable goal. To squander money which could have saved several orders of magnitude more people, if it were spent more wisely, is never laudable.
Right, it requires bitcoin miners. The bitcoins for mining are running out. There was supposed to be an infrastructure that paid miners from each transaction in a block.
It's already there and has been there since the beginning.
Oh, psychopathy would happen even with accountability. It just means the psychopath has to get rid of one extra thing before going full throttle on the psychopathy.
If your accountability is well designed, then it's a very big obstruction which is the whole point of accountability.
When we act with intent to better the world, we just get socialism, and we know that doesn't work.
Self-parody right? Socialism without accountability is a playground for the sort of behavior you claim to care about.
As for the original purpose and intent of the internet - it's just as naiive. It was deigned by people who were privileged and grew up in a free country and never read history books and never dared to step outside their extremely comfortable comfortable zones and imagine how it could be abused.
And the above paragraph was written by someone who didn't think. If you're trying to fix human tyranny via modding the TCP/IP stack, then you're doing it wrong.
Until they starting testing to psychopathy and rejecting those shown to be psychopaths, this problem will get far worse.
I too want those magic pink unicorns to catch all the bad people. The thing you don't seem to get here is that psychopathy is a normal human reaction to great power and unaccountability. There's no magic test for this.
Which is EXACTLY why The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept, and all the other bullshit journalists... suck.
They're in it for themselves... content, truth, openness, sharing, facts and publishing the whole thing unredacted and without permission from authority... are completely secondary.
So what? This is real life, not some fairy tale movie where the journalist hero saves the world and wins the girl. There will never be a side of pure good. There will never be a clear victory over evil.
Slashdot Mirror
But there are a lot of really good reasons to doubt that pattern will happen this time.
Then what are those reasons? I don't see them myself. Instead, I see scapegoating of automation. The developed world is experiencing massive labor competition from the rest of the world and those developed world societies have the habit of punishing the act of employment in a variety of unpleasant and costly ways.
So even in the absence of any significant improvement in automation, we would still see jobs lost to automation just because someone made workers too expensive to compete even with the stuff that wasn't competitive in the past.
In today's world of increasing automation, how many of those jobs are essentially going to be makework? Or part of marketing efforts that try to convince people they need something frivolous that they don't have? Is the current economic system so inevitable or desirable that those things are preferable to just letting people stay home?
The past was also a world of increasing automation. It turned out that automation made human labor more valuable rather than less.
As to makework, who will employ people to do nothing rather than to do something with at least a little return? I suppose it does lead to the situation where I could be getting paid by thousands of employers of my own construction to surf the web and taint SN from the comfort of my couch in my basement lair.
The point is we as a society let them get away with murder in service to that narrative.
If it's actual murder rather than imaginary murder, then there are laws for that. You have to have some sort of intent to kill and of course, the actual killing of a person to go with that. OTOH, if you just want to kill rich people without regard for due diligence or law, then that is murder.
Again, the claim isn't debatable. Any honest economist will tell you $12/hr isn't enough for those things. Take note of what I choose to list. It's all things that relate to long term economic security. Again, go do some googling. Read the fark politics tab for a few weeks. It'll do you some good to find out how awful the world really is for 90% of the human race.
There are several flaws with your argument. First, $12 per hour is quite a bit of money especially when coupled with other income. At full time, that's $24k per year which is plenty for the various "long term economic security" things you claim to care about.
Second, you ignore that the items you claimed to care about are artificially inflated in price. Is it Uber's job to fix that? Is Uber supposed to pay whatever cost the bleeding hearts of our societies inflate a "long term economic security" thing to?
And read fark in order to learn anything? You are retarded.
Finally, as to the 90% of humanity which you claim to care about, I note once again that their lot is improving and at a rapid rate. Better is better, right?
Um.... wow. You really missed the whole point on the dark age. I didn't say we _were_ in a new dark age, I said we were heading for one. What caused the Dark Ages was the 1% of the time preventing any advancement in human civilization to prevent them from being ousted from power by widespread societal changes.
What caused the Dark Ages was the collapse of the Roman Empire (the similar collapse of the Han empire in China didn't help), destruction of its infrastructure, and the end of the continental trade networks. That's completely at odds with what the real world is doing. We're building vast infrastructure on a global scale, there is no part of the world that doesn't benefit from global trade in some way, and everyone's life is improving. Yet why this talk of imaginary dark ages?
Basically rampant conservativism.
Your ideological blindness is showing.
Please stop. Really. Please. Stop.
Please heed your own advice. I think there are few as need of listening to themselves as you.
1) You won't get a replacement of the worst drivers because most of them won't be able to afford automation.
Well, they're driving self-driving vehicles anyway because that was your scenario.
I can't see what part of your post indicates why it is OK that we cause accidents for the best drivers
And I don't see that in any part of your posts either. I wonder why.
The phrase you're looking for is "Job Creators". That's what the 1% call the social contract. It's a different slant on the narrative (a right wing one as opposed to a left wing one) but it's effectively the same base narrative. To wit: If you work hard and play by the rules you'll do good.
Sorry, you're the only one here spinning tales. I merely pointed out that your "narrative" was deeply broken. I don't care who you plan to blame for it.
That they're not following the contract is readily demonstrable. Again, this has nothing to do with reality. This is a narrative. Uber pays about $12/hr with no benefits after accounting for the cost of a vehicle. Less if you're city's median income is lower. You can't buy a house, pay for a child's college or save for retirement with that. You can google the statistics to prove that. I can't be arsed right now.
Uber doesn't follow an imaginary contract by imaginary villains in an imaginary narrative? Do tell!
As to your other claim, money is still fungible, even if it comes from Uber. You can indeed buy a house, pay for a child's education, or save for retirement with that money just like any other money you happen to earn.
The point is we're being fed a load of old bull. We're being tricked. The gains the working class made (and fought and died for) are being taken away and we're gradually slipping into a new dark age. Thanks a lot.
A "dark age" which, let us note, involves virtually the entire world becoming wealthier and more educated as a result.
Instead focus on how they break the perceived social contract between employee and employer. If you worked hard and played by the rules your employer would take care of you and let you have an OK life and die reasonably content.
There's several things to note here. First, I doubt Uber perceives things the same way. If they perceive the "perceived social contract" differently, then what's to say that your perception of it is better than theirs? I doubt most people involved with Uber think of it as a cradle to grave service and hence, don't perceive this alleged contract. Maybe you shouldn't either?
Nor has this perceived contract existed for the entirety of humanity's existence. I feel this is just like claiming that Valentine's Day should be a second Christmas just because someone wants presents and Christmas is pretty far off in early February. It's an arbitrary changing of the rules to advantage some group at the expense of another.
Third, I don't grant that most of the people involved with providing rides in Uber are employees and hence, subject to such a contract. For a key example, there's no obligation to provide Uber rides. That obligation to work is a key aspect of employment. Seriously, what real job allows you to just drop employment right now and then resume employment at doing the same thing eight months later without telling the employer at any point that you're doing that?
Fourth, why do you think that Uber isn't following this "contract" well enough? Getting paid good money to provide rides sounds exactly like a bit of "take care of you". Maybe if these people want an OK life and to die content, then they should use the funds that they get in exchange for providing ridership services to do that themselves?
Finally, the ultimate irrationality of this contract is evident in the assumption that providing such things is something that an employer would be competent at. You know, the same people who so often have trouble seeing past the next quarter? I'm just not feeling it.
At best, we will be saving the drunks at the cost of some good drivers.
Good drivers get killed by drunk drivers too. And it's worth noting here that a remarkable number of deaths in the US are associated with driving under the influence of alcohol.
In 2014, 9,967 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
We also have here the fallacy of the excluded middle. There's no reason that sufficiently safe drivers can't continue to drive and the US has a large pool of high mileage drivers who have collectively reduced the accident rate to 11 deaths and 1850 crashes per billion miles.
Now, I noticed in the months ago thread where I first mentioned these US safety numbers, my following observation:
The problem here is two-fold. First, we have a very low accident rate in the US. There is not that much room for improvement. If you look at the proposed benefits of self-driving vehicles, you find that they speak of highway driving a lot. That is already among the safest sort of driving.
Further, both cargo and taxi driving are high priority targets. It would replace the safest human drivers, the ones who do it as a profession.
There could be a period of time when automated driving makes things worse due to replacing the safest human driving and human rather than the worst.
Sorry, I don't see replacement of the worst drivers as being a serious issue. Even wholesale replacement of all human drivers would still gain from getting the worst drivers off the street and thus would have somewhat weaker safety thresholds to meet than the best human drivers and still come out a net gain for safety.
The real problem is that some implementation proposals of self-driving vehicles looks to replace the safest drivers first not the worst drivers. For example, if you replace all truck drivers with less safe self-driving vehicles while doing nothing about the drivers who generate most accidents, you will see an increase in vehicular accidents and deaths.
Therefore, Autopilot needs to be better then all humans before it can be said to be totally safe. If not totally safe, then it shouldn't be on the road.
Wow, that's a lousy argument. I disagree on the first assertion on the grounds that it is meaningless semantics twisting. And I certainly disagree on the leap of logic that claims we should take an important tool off the road on the grounds that it can't meet some absurd standard of operation which people don't have to come even remotely close to meeting.
That second point bears repeating. There are drivers who are much safer than the average driver (and drive enough that overall accident rates per mile are extremely low) who in turn are much safer than the drivers who cause most of the auto accidents in the US (eg, drunk drivers and other such incompetents).
Only three reason people are motivated to do anything. Money, Friendship or Prestige (Some other self interest). Trump doesn't look all that friendly so...
Terrible argument since motivation is less important than outcome. Sure, if someone is promising something because it furthers their goal of destroying the world, then sure, I'm concerned. But your rule of motivation supposedly applies to everyone not just Trump. Why does Trump's motivations matter more than anyone else's? He's not the only one running for US president, for example.
Nobody goes to Google to watch the ads.
Nuclear war: The US nukes China. 500 million die.
Why would only 500 million people die? Anyone, willing to start a nuclear war with China while expecting the usual retaliatory nuclear strikes, and which has the number of warheads that the US has, will probably be aware of the future strategic problem (from their aggressor point of view) of leaving lots of survivors in China.
You answered your own question: it's a division of power thing.
Having a new entity that tests for psychopathy will mean a redistribution of power, some of it going to this new entity. So it really is just another form of accountability aka another thing to work around.
I don't buy it. My view is that the testing is useless except as an arbitrary exercise of power. If you're going to do things like that, why not do something useful with that entity, like passing laws or judging breaches of the law (the traditional two divisions of power common to most democracies)?
See, you act like what the other AC propose and what you think works are different things and that one is better or worse. To a psychopath, they aren't, and they'll both work just as well or not.
Again, I don't buy this. I'm not a psychopath and hence, don't share this alleged equivalence.
Bitcoin depends on artificial scarcity for value- never a good thing.
All currency and money equivalents depend on scarcity else there's no point to the currency in either of the roles usually assigned to it (medium of exchange and store of value). Further, the scarcity of bitcoins is quite natural, arising inherently from the Bitcoin system.
Bitcoin: designed by a brilliant mathematician who had never read a macroeconomics textbook or intermediate-level survey.
I take it you think there's something wrong with Bitcoins from the macroeconomics point of view?
Holmes is persona non-grata right now. [...]
However, she will not work in biotech again. [...]
No, Holmes is finished in Biotech.
Unless, of course, those assertions turn out false. Never underestimate the power of dumb money to pay someone to tell it what it wants to hear.
Doesn't matter. If the power being watched is great enough, psychopaths will appear to try and take it, no matter how big or how many obstructions you put in the way. That's the point of great power.
Which is why division of power happens. And what again was the point of testing for psychopathy as the original AC proposed? That's just another thing to work around. At least, accountability works better than that.
Safety is the single worst reason to throw away a tried and tested basic design that is fantastically safe and replace it with a much more complicated and new system.
And may well be less safe, we should note.
Zero deaths in any form of transportation is a laudable goal. Zero deaths in every industry is a laudable goal. Zero deaths total is a laudable goal.
No, it's not due to opportunity cost. Sure, if spending a little money saves a bunch of lives, that's a laudable goal. To squander money which could have saved several orders of magnitude more people, if it were spent more wisely, is never laudable.
Right, it requires bitcoin miners. The bitcoins for mining are running out. There was supposed to be an infrastructure that paid miners from each transaction in a block.
It's already there and has been there since the beginning.
Oh, psychopathy would happen even with accountability. It just means the psychopath has to get rid of one extra thing before going full throttle on the psychopathy.
If your accountability is well designed, then it's a very big obstruction which is the whole point of accountability.
When we act with intent to better the world, we just get socialism, and we know that doesn't work.
Self-parody right? Socialism without accountability is a playground for the sort of behavior you claim to care about.
As for the original purpose and intent of the internet - it's just as naiive. It was deigned by people who were privileged and grew up in a free country and never read history books and never dared to step outside their extremely comfortable comfortable zones and imagine how it could be abused.
And the above paragraph was written by someone who didn't think. If you're trying to fix human tyranny via modding the TCP/IP stack, then you're doing it wrong.
Until they starting testing to psychopathy and rejecting those shown to be psychopaths, this problem will get far worse.
I too want those magic pink unicorns to catch all the bad people. The thing you don't seem to get here is that psychopathy is a normal human reaction to great power and unaccountability. There's no magic test for this.
And with that kind of support... you will never be free.
In the real world, you use the tools you have to make the world a better place. Not the magic pink unicorns you wish you had.
Which is EXACTLY why The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept, and all the other bullshit journalists... suck. They're in it for themselves... content, truth, openness, sharing, facts and publishing the whole thing unredacted and without permission from authority... are completely secondary.
So what? This is real life, not some fairy tale movie where the journalist hero saves the world and wins the girl. There will never be a side of pure good. There will never be a clear victory over evil.
And all the hypothesized infrastructure that would keep them mining hasn't materialized.
That infrastructure has been baked into bitcoins from the beginning. Every transaction requires computation which can be done by bitcoin miners.