If you are a physicalist, you are already ignoring things like consciousness and free will (there are no known physical mechanism for them after all and claiming them to be "emergent properties of complexity" is just mystical bullshit) and there really is no reason to discuss this any further. Physicalism is belief (i.e. "religion"), not scientific fact. Science makes no claims that humans are purely physical at this time and it does not make any claims that they are not either. The scientific start-of-the-art is "we have no clue". I do understand that some people, especially in the US, try to use physicalism as a counter-point to religion, but I think that is misguided and ultimately a failure as you end up with a quite similar dogmatism.
There are some scientific indicators though that there may be more to the human mind than physics as known, for example the constant long-term failure to create general ("strong") AI even on the level of an utter moron. It seems this is either excessively hard or impossible.
You are right insofar that many things that were thought to require actual intelligence can in fact be done with weak AI ("automation") almost as well and sometimes even better, as they do not really require insight or understanding. Doing them with understanding and insight is just one possible strategy of several. Add to that that many people cannot go much beyond that level (and the unfortunate fact is that the average human being goes through live without understanding anything even a bit complicated) and most jobs will be accessible to automation. The remaining people (the independent and creative thinkers) make maybe 10-15% of all humans and they may not get replaced, ever, but having jobs for 10-15% of the population (assuming all independent thinkers are needed, which is unlikely) is not going to keep the current society-models going.
In fact, it is so easy to plant evidence using malware without leaving a trace (except the malware itself), that I would be extremely surprised if that is not already being done. In any sane legal system, anything obtained by techniques beyond purely passive observation (and planting malware is anything but) needs to be regarded as tainted and inadmissible.
Indeed. There is nothing so bad that ignoring constitutional protections is a good idea. That is why these protections were created. Otherwise you end up with the "despicable crime du jour" being enough to not give people constitutional protection. It starts with CP, then there are a few steps, and then it becomes being gay, or having sex while not being married, or being an atheist or disagreeing with the government. That is exactly the reason why these limits on government power are not conditional.
And if you do not defend the rights and freedoms of scumbags, pretty soon, nobody will have rights or freedoms. That is the thing so many idiots (like you) do not understand.
Not only do they have that right (you seem to think you have a right to a "free lunch"... you do not), they will do it. Unless cooler heads will prevail, these jobs will go offshore and the effect will be that ultimately, the US will become a backwater. In some regards, it already is.
Hahahahahaha, nice! The sheer level of non-understanding displayed in your posting is quite amusing. Protectionism does not work because it cannot work. Oh, sure, it can create a straw-fire for a few years and sometimes even a decade or two, but the bill to pay is always much higher than without it.
Indeed. Just the same, incidentally, to replace factory workers with robots. Initially difficult and somewhat expensive, but once done a lot cheaper, and these jobs will never come back and there are no other jobs created (well, a tiny number for highly qualified experts is created, say 100 engineers for 5000-10000 jobs eliminated). That explains, for example, why Intel can invest 15 Billion into a Fab in the US and create a pathetically low 3000 jobs with it.
Face it: The non-expert job market is dying in the US. It has just not realized that. And no amount of shouting and tweeting inane things is going to bring it back. Incidentally, I think Trump knows that and is just trying to keep up the pretense long enough so that he can get a second term.
This is not the number for replacing H1B. The number relevant here does not actually save you a lot of money and it is currently somewhat (but not a lot) cheaper to get the people into the country. But if you cannot do that, it is a lot cheaper to hire them abroad and keep them there compared to go with badly educated and incompetent US "talent".
Your bold statements have one little problem: They ignore reality. Quite common with boisterous wannabes that have no clue what is going on. Off-shoring is not saving that much money. A study from Gartner (a decade or so ago) put the cost savings at 30% if everything works. However, if you cannot get the workers you want domestically, then this changes dramatically. But keep kidding yourself, the fate of the clueless is to eventually fail.
There is no "computer creativity" at this time, and possibly not ever. All we have is weak AI and the best it can do is filter things from random searches. Of course, the results of random searches can look creative, but they are not.
Same idea, bit of a different attacker model. Just as effective against the targeted attacks though. And males it _very_ obvious that this "invention" mostly stems from ignoring the state-of-the-art.
In particular, there is no early way out and after you have served your time you are free. This really does not match what is going on here.
As to the issue itself, if H1Bs are reduced enough or made economically non-viable, companies will just move the jobs offshore. There really is no way for US workers to win this one and anybody saying differently is a big fat liar, ah, I mean "purveyor of alternate facts" of course!
Actually, there are mainly two things humans can do better: 1. Prop up other human's egos by serving them and 2. Creativity and insight. The latter is out of reach for most people as basis of a job and the former does not furnish that many jobs. It does not even need strong AI (which we are not getting any time soon), weak AI (i.e. "automation") is quite enough.
And that is exactly not what is going to happen. Robots are already cheaper than factory workers in Asia. That is pretty much as low as it gets for somewhat skilled labor.
And where have you missed that this is precisely the intent? The UBI is the currently only known solution for a society to survive the loss of most jobs without replacement. It is intended to keep people fed and able to buy things in the absence of jobs they can do in order to prevent collapse of the market and the social order.
If that extreme and permanent job shortage does not materialize, fine, no need for an UBI. But it looks pretty much unavoidable now.
Only an UBI that covers living decently makes sense. The primary purpose of the UBI is to reduce the number of people that work and to reduce hours worked because jobs become increasingly unavailable and the remaining jobs will be out of reach skill-wise for most people. We critically need a way to stop people from working in the nos-so-distant future and the only way to do that (besides shooting them) is to make it unnecessary to work.
You seem to somehow have missed that most jobs will go away and not be replaced with others. Hence your statements make no sense. Nobody is really advocating for an UBI if enough jobs stay available and need to be done.
How other could they see "it may encourage some people to work less" as a problem, when that is precisely the intent? The problem tackled by an UBI is primarily the scarcity of work, nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are a physicalist, you are already ignoring things like consciousness and free will (there are no known physical mechanism for them after all and claiming them to be "emergent properties of complexity" is just mystical bullshit) and there really is no reason to discuss this any further. Physicalism is belief (i.e. "religion"), not scientific fact. Science makes no claims that humans are purely physical at this time and it does not make any claims that they are not either. The scientific start-of-the-art is "we have no clue". I do understand that some people, especially in the US, try to use physicalism as a counter-point to religion, but I think that is misguided and ultimately a failure as you end up with a quite similar dogmatism.
There are some scientific indicators though that there may be more to the human mind than physics as known, for example the constant long-term failure to create general ("strong") AI even on the level of an utter moron. It seems this is either excessively hard or impossible.
You are right insofar that many things that were thought to require actual intelligence can in fact be done with weak AI ("automation") almost as well and sometimes even better, as they do not really require insight or understanding. Doing them with understanding and insight is just one possible strategy of several. Add to that that many people cannot go much beyond that level (and the unfortunate fact is that the average human being goes through live without understanding anything even a bit complicated) and most jobs will be accessible to automation. The remaining people (the independent and creative thinkers) make maybe 10-15% of all humans and they may not get replaced, ever, but having jobs for 10-15% of the population (assuming all independent thinkers are needed, which is unlikely) is not going to keep the current society-models going.
Incidentally, the US military bombing children seems to be completely fine....
In fact, it is so easy to plant evidence using malware without leaving a trace (except the malware itself), that I would be extremely surprised if that is not already being done. In any sane legal system, anything obtained by techniques beyond purely passive observation (and planting malware is anything but) needs to be regarded as tainted and inadmissible.
Indeed. There is nothing so bad that ignoring constitutional protections is a good idea. That is why these protections were created. Otherwise you end up with the "despicable crime du jour" being enough to not give people constitutional protection. It starts with CP, then there are a few steps, and then it becomes being gay, or having sex while not being married, or being an atheist or disagreeing with the government. That is exactly the reason why these limits on government power are not conditional.
And if you do not defend the rights and freedoms of scumbags, pretty soon, nobody will have rights or freedoms. That is the thing so many idiots (like you) do not understand.
Not only do they have that right (you seem to think you have a right to a "free lunch"... you do not), they will do it. Unless cooler heads will prevail, these jobs will go offshore and the effect will be that ultimately, the US will become a backwater. In some regards, it already is.
Hahahahahaha, nice! The sheer level of non-understanding displayed in your posting is quite amusing. Protectionism does not work because it cannot work. Oh, sure, it can create a straw-fire for a few years and sometimes even a decade or two, but the bill to pay is always much higher than without it.
No argument there. But if you cannot get the workers you want domestically, you will go through that process. In the end, it pays off.
Indeed. Just the same, incidentally, to replace factory workers with robots. Initially difficult and somewhat expensive, but once done a lot cheaper, and these jobs will never come back and there are no other jobs created (well, a tiny number for highly qualified experts is created, say 100 engineers for 5000-10000 jobs eliminated). That explains, for example, why Intel can invest 15 Billion into a Fab in the US and create a pathetically low 3000 jobs with it.
Face it: The non-expert job market is dying in the US. It has just not realized that. And no amount of shouting and tweeting inane things is going to bring it back. Incidentally, I think Trump knows that and is just trying to keep up the pretense long enough so that he can get a second term.
This is not the number for replacing H1B. The number relevant here does not actually save you a lot of money and it is currently somewhat (but not a lot) cheaper to get the people into the country. But if you cannot do that, it is a lot cheaper to hire them abroad and keep them there compared to go with badly educated and incompetent US "talent".
Unfortunately, how did he put it, "FALSE"! (As if screaming would make anything more true. The sign of a weak mind...)
Your bold statements have one little problem: They ignore reality. Quite common with boisterous wannabes that have no clue what is going on. Off-shoring is not saving that much money. A study from Gartner (a decade or so ago) put the cost savings at 30% if everything works. However, if you cannot get the workers you want domestically, then this changes dramatically. But keep kidding yourself, the fate of the clueless is to eventually fail.
There is no "computer creativity" at this time, and possibly not ever. All we have is weak AI and the best it can do is filter things from random searches. Of course, the results of random searches can look creative, but they are not.
If you even have to ask, then you are blind and stupid.
Same idea, bit of a different attacker model. Just as effective against the targeted attacks though. And males it _very_ obvious that this "invention" mostly stems from ignoring the state-of-the-art.
In particular, there is no early way out and after you have served your time you are free. This really does not match what is going on here.
As to the issue itself, if H1Bs are reduced enough or made economically non-viable, companies will just move the jobs offshore. There really is no way for US workers to win this one and anybody saying differently is a big fat liar, ah, I mean "purveyor of alternate facts" of course!
Actually, there are mainly two things humans can do better: 1. Prop up other human's egos by serving them and 2. Creativity and insight. The latter is out of reach for most people as basis of a job and the former does not furnish that many jobs. It does not even need strong AI (which we are not getting any time soon), weak AI (i.e. "automation") is quite enough.
And that is exactly not what is going to happen. Robots are already cheaper than factory workers in Asia. That is pretty much as low as it gets for somewhat skilled labor.
Pathetic. Getting hacked by attackers on this level is not a fact of life, it is a sign of incompetence and arrogance.
At this time yes. In the not so distant future, no. Most jobs will go away and will not be replaced.
And where have you missed that this is precisely the intent? The UBI is the currently only known solution for a society to survive the loss of most jobs without replacement. It is intended to keep people fed and able to buy things in the absence of jobs they can do in order to prevent collapse of the market and the social order.
If that extreme and permanent job shortage does not materialize, fine, no need for an UBI. But it looks pretty much unavoidable now.
Only an UBI that covers living decently makes sense. The primary purpose of the UBI is to reduce the number of people that work and to reduce hours worked because jobs become increasingly unavailable and the remaining jobs will be out of reach skill-wise for most people. We critically need a way to stop people from working in the nos-so-distant future and the only way to do that (besides shooting them) is to make it unnecessary to work.
You seem to somehow have missed that most jobs will go away and not be replaced with others. Hence your statements make no sense. Nobody is really advocating for an UBI if enough jobs stay available and need to be done.
How other could they see "it may encourage some people to work less" as a problem, when that is precisely the intent? The problem tackled by an UBI is primarily the scarcity of work, nothing else.
You seem to be quite unaware that the Japanese got the design for Fukushima from the US. "Alternate Facts" much?