You're totally missing the point. Machines will be better and cheaper than you at almost any kind of job you can think of. There will not be gainful employment for the people that want it.
There may be 5 billion adults in search of jobs, and the automated economy may only need 5 million human workers.
Or, in the interim, there may be 5 billion in search of work, and the partially automated economy needs 2.5 billion workers.
That's the kind of thing we're talking about, and work ethic will have very little to do with it.
No you're wrong. This time it's different. This time the machines are getting better (and ultimately cheaper) than people at nearly every job category, including the replacement job categories you might think of, like robot repairman (or robot polisher).
Infinite greed just ensures now that a variety of new applications of automation will be designed to meet those new "needs".
This time it's fundamentally different, and just having a strong will to train and work will definitely not be enough.
Now while in your case, gazillians of your body cells just doing their own thing might well be more effective than your current governed body, that is not the case for most assemblages of millions or billions of actors. They work better and are more stable and thrive better when they are organized, or governed, if you will.
But no matter what he thinks Hillary did to him, his recent actions have him in active support of Donald Trump for president of the world's largest superpower, and that's just beyond fathoming level of dumb.
Sad to say it but I guess being cooped up must really make you neurotic after a while.
Very funny Mr. McWeany. Let me spell it out for you. The embedded journalists in the Iraq war were embedded with the US troops, who were engaged in an illegal war of first aggression. By implication, being on the ground in that sovereign country with those invading troops was a crime of aiding and abetting.
to the status quo and the cheap conveniences it grants you, and it is on this basis that you oppose change, and create tortured arguments appearing to be rational but grounded in wishful thinking.
On the "more CO2, methane in atmosphere leads to solar-heat-trapping and global warming" scientific issue, the scientific verdict is crystal clear, even if the nth degree accuracy of models of complex local effects is not assured. That level of accuracy of sub-effect predictions and exact timing is irrelevant, so long as the key drivers of the energy retention on the planet are understood, and they are.
On the "humans are responsible for greatly increased CO2 and methane release than over the last million years or so", that scientific case is also decided with a yes.
Scientific evidence is on the side of a clear significant rapid warming effect. Emotional opposition to change is driving the opposition to action. Where those supporting change in an attempt to moderate this physical planetary problem become emotional is only because they are frustrated by the irrational and seemly self-centred opposition to the changes needed.Mostly, those wanting change here are scared shitless by their intelligent, accurate read of the scientific consensus.
Those opposed are childishly saying "I found one industry-paid phd in a different field schill over here who says it's a crock." "Warming and need for swift action" is supported by science and rationality. "There is no warming caused by us, and no action is needed' is supported by emotion and irrationality.
So get it straight who are the know-nothing emotional ones on this issue.
"you do not get to be a participant in a crime just because your a journalist."
Unless you are an embedded journalist with the troops in the second Iraq war.
This will be down-modded as a troll, but that war was based on lies and the schedule on the "microsoft-project" plan for the war, overriding the requests of the international weapons inspectors to wait to let them finish their investigation with which Iraq was cooperating. That war was inflicted on people of the same general skin tone as 9/11 terrorists and no closer relationship to that attack than that, as an object lesson to whomever, worldwide, not to mess with the US. If that isn't illegal under the laws and conventions of international aggression I don't know what is.
Illegality is a matter of power and perspective, it seems.
Country - - - - - - - CO2 Emission per capita (t) in 2014 United States - - 16.5 China - - - - - - - - 7.6 European Union 6.7 India - - - - - - - - - 1.8
It's becoming possible to create software/datastores that learn patterns, concepts, significant clusters, concepts that the maker of the software did NOT put into the thing, and DID NOT KNOW that the system would come up with.
The holy grail of AI research is GENERAL AI. One version of that means you could start with a tabula rasa and let it learn and direct its own learning. This is a new kind of brain, a new kind of mind I would even say.
You can't accuse it of just inheriting its makers' biases. There's a fundamental layer separation between what the thing learns, thinks about, and concludes, and how it was built by its engineers. The people in this loop just build the plumbing/wiring of the brain/mind. What the brain/mind does with that will eventually be up to its history of experience. It may be told to formulate and then enact goals, but the more advanced this technology gets, the more the input programming will be no more specific than just -"learn" (from Internet's content and input sensors), -"conceptualize (efficiently organize) what you are learning", -"form goals", -"try to enact them". -"correct as you go - including self-directed goal-directed learning" - "reflect", -"repeat".
The government talks about the need to retrain displaced workers for more skilled jobs that are complementary to AI.
I'm pretty sure that's wishful thinking this time around. This time around, the automation is going to be better than you and me at many if not most aspects of many of our jobs.
I would summarize the optimistic tone of this report this way:
"You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth!"
The truth is that the key political and societal challenges of the coming AI age will be: 1. Politically and socially accepted redistribution of wealth to allow participation in more than the black market economy by the half of us that are going to be permanently out of a job. 2. Figuring out what the hell to replace the now pretty much useless "work ethic" that gives us our sense of worth with.
This government report is a start, but it heavily sugar coats the bitter pill we have to swallow soon. (And I don't want to suggest that actually swallowing a bitter pill is the solution. What IS the solution to the real problem coming up: Massive unemployment. ???)
"Does anyone really want to watch a game of Basketball where the height distribution of the players perfectly mirrors the height distribution of the general population?"
No, but I want to watch a basketball game with a smart hoop that immediately adjusts its height to be propportional to the height of the player with possession of the ball.
There are some systems that are so complex (people going about their lives and having a chance of dying, for example) that you will never be able to predict the particular outcome for a particular individual, no matter if your computer brain is the size of a planet.
The best info we can ever get in advance about these complex systems is statistics about populations of the with similar characteristics in similar environments.
the machine learning algorithm infers a difference which is real, but uncomfortable for us socially.
Let's assume that we can prove that the detected difference was in the case NOT introduced by human-created input-data bias.
I'll give an example: I'm left handed so I think I'm allowed to talk about this.
What if the system learns that left handed people in North America die a little earlier than right handed people. And specifically that they die with higher frequency in car accidents.
(I'm pretty sure both statements are true above. Reasons for it are not definite, but for the first one, can include that many tools and affordances in society are designed to be easy for right-handers, so left-handers may interact poorly with them sometimes and sometimes that bites, For the second, it may be because a left handed driver who dozes off or becomes distracted tends to pull the steering wheel a little to the left, into oncoming traffic, Right-handers tend to pull to the right, onto the on-balance safer shoulder of the road.)
So does that mean its ok to increase life insurance premiums and automobile insurance premiums for left-handed people?
What kind of statistically valid discrimination IS ok? Any?
How is your cherry-picked example of a few individuals' behavior in any way relevant to the essential problems at hand and substantial solutions needed?
To me how you responded sounds like an ad hominem attack with an agenda of stopping the changes needed. You must be out of valid logical arguments.
Conserving living species biodiversity and habitat, Preventing a wholesale shift of climate into a new regime 10 degrees F warmer Slowing down the massive rates of fresh-water pollution and over-use Preventing the oceans from acidifying due to warming and killing off all shellfish and many other ocean lifeforms
All of these things would be radical?
As opposed to continuing on our present accelerating course to a profoundly messed up life-support system on this planet and the attendant mass-scale misery and resource wars. Which would be, what, conservative?
Do you see quite how f**ked up your perspective is yet?
Not saying that total urbanization is a great idea. However...
Clumping people together results in less environmental impact PER PERSON than distributing people across the countryside. Dense urbanization with a public transit network, and tower homes with fewer exterior walls per home, is much more energy efficient. Food and goods distibution also benefits from efficiencies of scale. Sure you might get some accumulated garbage and sewage, but even then, it's more efficient to deal with that in a dense form than spread out.
As far as CO2-equivalent global warming effect, generating electricity with natural gas is almost as bad as burning coal. The reason is subtle.
When UNBURNED natural gas leaks out of the distribution pipe network and leaks at extraction from the ground, that is methane that is being emitted into the atmosphere.
100-year global warming potential of methane (CH4) 25 x – I.e. Releasing 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 25 kg of CO2
20-year global warming potential of methane (CH4) 72 x – I.e. Releasing 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 72 kg of CO2, in terms of warming effects over the 20 years following emission.
If the total leakage in the production and distribution of natural gas is about 3%, natural gas energy's global warming potential is about the same as coal's.
The actual leakage percentage is a much debated unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
You're totally missing the point. Machines will be better and cheaper than you at almost any kind of job you can think of. There will not be gainful employment for the people that want it.
There may be 5 billion adults in search of jobs, and the automated economy may only need 5 million human workers.
Or, in the interim, there may be 5 billion in search of work, and the partially automated economy needs 2.5 billion workers.
That's the kind of thing we're talking about, and work ethic will have very little to do with it.
No you're wrong. This time it's different. This time the machines are getting better (and ultimately cheaper) than people at nearly every job category, including the replacement job categories you might think of, like robot repairman (or robot polisher).
Infinite greed just ensures now that a variety of new applications of automation will be designed to meet those new "needs".
This time it's fundamentally different, and just having a strong will to train and work will definitely not be enough.
I suggest you remove it, and see how that goes.
Now while in your case, gazillians of your body cells just doing their own thing might well be more effective than your current governed body, that is not the case for most assemblages of millions or billions of actors. They work better and are more stable and thrive better when they are organized, or governed, if you will.
But no matter what he thinks Hillary did to him, his recent actions have him in active support of Donald Trump for president of the world's largest superpower, and that's just beyond fathoming level of dumb.
Sad to say it but I guess being cooped up must really make you neurotic after a while.
Very funny Mr. McWeany. Let me spell it out for you. The embedded journalists in the Iraq war were embedded with the US troops, who were engaged in an illegal war of first aggression. By implication, being on the ground in that sovereign country with those invading troops was a crime of aiding and abetting.
to the status quo and the cheap conveniences it grants you, and it is on this basis that you oppose change, and create tortured arguments appearing to be rational but grounded in wishful thinking.
On the "more CO2, methane in atmosphere leads to solar-heat-trapping and global warming" scientific issue, the scientific verdict is crystal clear, even if the nth degree accuracy of models of complex local effects is not assured. That level of accuracy of sub-effect predictions and exact timing is irrelevant, so long as the key drivers of the energy retention on the planet are understood, and they are.
On the "humans are responsible for greatly increased CO2 and methane release than over the last million years or so", that scientific case is also decided with a yes.
Scientific evidence is on the side of a clear significant rapid warming effect. Emotional opposition to change is driving the opposition to action. Where those supporting change in an attempt to moderate this physical planetary problem become emotional is only because they are frustrated by the irrational and seemly self-centred opposition to the changes needed.Mostly, those wanting change here are scared shitless by their intelligent, accurate read of the scientific consensus.
Those opposed are childishly saying "I found one industry-paid phd in a different field schill over here who says it's a crock."
"Warming and need for swift action" is supported by science and rationality.
"There is no warming caused by us, and no action is needed' is supported by emotion and irrationality.
So get it straight who are the know-nothing emotional ones on this issue.
"you do not get to be a participant in a crime just because your a journalist."
Unless you are an embedded journalist with the troops in the second Iraq war.
This will be down-modded as a troll, but that war was based on lies and the schedule on the "microsoft-project" plan for the war, overriding the requests of the international weapons inspectors to wait to let them finish their investigation with which Iraq was cooperating. That war was inflicted on people of the same general skin tone as 9/11 terrorists and no closer relationship to that attack than that, as an object lesson to whomever, worldwide, not to mess with the US. If that isn't illegal under the laws and conventions of international aggression I don't know what is.
Illegality is a matter of power and perspective, it seems.
hope and change?
That's a legitimate question.
Why is the law and the force of law enforcement always on the side of the entrenched, obsolete and now destructive interests?
When will law and law enforcement actually be supporting the implementation of the absolutely clearly necessary changes to our energy system?
When will the law actually be clearing away obstruction to change, instead of advocates of necessary change?
Imagine all the people...
in the election at this stage means you must have the political and social insight of a (very vertical) fence post.
Per capita you're way wrong.
Country - - - - - - - CO2 Emission per capita (t) in 2014
United States - - 16.5
China - - - - - - - - 7.6
European Union 6.7
India - - - - - - - - - 1.8
For some reason, my car's GPS display is always just blinking 12:00
Can you help me?
It's becoming possible to create software/datastores that learn patterns, concepts, significant clusters, concepts that the maker of the software did NOT put into the thing, and DID NOT KNOW that the system would come up with.
The holy grail of AI research is GENERAL AI. One version of that means you could start with a tabula rasa and let it learn and direct its own learning.
This is a new kind of brain, a new kind of mind I would even say.
You can't accuse it of just inheriting its makers' biases. There's a fundamental layer separation between what the thing learns, thinks about, and concludes, and how it was built by its engineers. The people in this loop just build the plumbing/wiring of the brain/mind. What the brain/mind does with that will eventually be up to its history of experience. It may be told to formulate and then enact goals, but the more advanced this technology gets, the more the input programming will be no more specific than just
-"learn" (from Internet's content and input sensors),
-"conceptualize (efficiently organize) what you are learning",
-"form goals",
-"try to enact them".
-"correct as you go - including self-directed goal-directed learning"
- "reflect",
-"repeat".
The government talks about the need to retrain displaced workers for more skilled jobs that are complementary to AI.
I'm pretty sure that's wishful thinking this time around.
This time around, the automation is going to be better than you and me at many if not most aspects of many of our jobs.
I would summarize the optimistic tone of this report this way:
"You want the truth? You can't HANDLE the truth!"
The truth is that the key political and societal challenges of the coming AI age will be:
1. Politically and socially accepted redistribution of wealth to allow participation in more than the black market economy by the half of us that are going to be permanently out of a job.
2. Figuring out what the hell to replace the now pretty much useless "work ethic" that gives us our sense of worth with.
This government report is a start, but it heavily sugar coats the bitter pill we have to swallow soon. (And I don't want to suggest that actually swallowing a bitter pill is the solution. What IS the solution to the real problem coming up: Massive unemployment. ???)
Gonna protect the cave.
"Does anyone really want to watch a game of Basketball where the height distribution of the players perfectly mirrors the height distribution of the general population?"
No, but I want to watch a basketball game with a smart hoop that immediately adjusts its height to be propportional to the height of the player with possession of the ball.
was brought to you by
the association of resource-extraction-company security goons and the national henchmen's association.
There are some systems that are so complex (people going about their lives and having a chance of dying, for example) that you will never be able to predict the particular outcome for a particular individual, no matter if your computer brain is the size of a planet.
The best info we can ever get in advance about these complex systems is statistics about populations of the with similar characteristics in similar environments.
infer: "deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements"
Can I infer that you haven't read much of the last 50 years' research literature in AI, formal logic, Bayesian inference, and machine learning?
the machine learning algorithm infers a difference which is real, but uncomfortable for us socially.
Let's assume that we can prove that the detected difference was in the case NOT introduced by human-created input-data bias.
I'll give an example: I'm left handed so I think I'm allowed to talk about this.
What if the system learns that left handed people in North America die a little earlier than right handed people.
And specifically that they die with higher frequency in car accidents.
(I'm pretty sure both statements are true above. Reasons for it are not definite, but for the first one, can include that many tools and affordances in society are designed to be easy for right-handers, so left-handers may interact poorly with them sometimes and sometimes that bites, For the second, it may be because a left handed driver who dozes off or becomes distracted tends to pull the steering wheel a little to the left, into oncoming traffic, Right-handers tend to pull to the right, onto the on-balance safer shoulder of the road.)
So does that mean its ok to increase life insurance premiums and automobile insurance premiums for left-handed people?
What kind of statistically valid discrimination IS ok? Any?
Then what do we do, in this day and age?
How is your cherry-picked example of a few individuals' behavior in any way relevant to the essential problems at hand and substantial solutions needed?
To me how you responded sounds like an ad hominem attack with an agenda of stopping the changes needed. You must be out of valid logical arguments.
So let's get this straight:
Conserving living species biodiversity and habitat,
Preventing a wholesale shift of climate into a new regime 10 degrees F warmer
Slowing down the massive rates of fresh-water pollution and over-use
Preventing the oceans from acidifying due to warming and killing off all shellfish and many other ocean lifeforms
All of these things would be radical?
As opposed to continuing on our present accelerating course to a profoundly messed up life-support system on this planet and the attendant mass-scale misery and resource wars. Which would be, what, conservative?
Do you see quite how f**ked up your perspective is yet?
of receiving emails from people telling you that they can't communicate with you.
Re "statist government" types.
You do realize I assume that the opposite of "statist" government is transnational mafia, mega-corporate, and warlord chieftain government, don't you?
You seriously think those types would let idealist libertarians prance around insisting on their "rights"? That would be good for a laugh.
Not saying that total urbanization is a great idea.
However...
Clumping people together results in less environmental impact PER PERSON than distributing people across the countryside.
Dense urbanization with a public transit network, and tower homes with fewer exterior walls per home, is much more energy efficient.
Food and goods distibution also benefits from efficiencies of scale. Sure you might get some accumulated garbage and sewage, but even then, it's more efficient to deal with that in a dense form than spread out.
As far as CO2-equivalent global warming effect, generating electricity with natural gas is almost as bad as burning coal.
The reason is subtle.
When UNBURNED natural gas leaks out of the distribution pipe network and leaks at extraction from the ground, that is methane that is being emitted into the atmosphere.
100-year global warming potential of methane (CH4)
25 x – I.e. Releasing 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 25 kg of CO2
20-year global warming potential of methane (CH4)
72 x – I.e. Releasing 1 kg of CH4 into the atmosphere is about equivalent to releasing 72 kg of CO2, in terms of warming effects over the 20 years following emission.
If the total leakage in the production and distribution of natural gas is about 3%, natural gas energy's global warming potential is about the same as coal's.
The actual leakage percentage is a much debated unknown.