Ever heard of "taxes"? Probably not, it is a historic idea where you apparently know how it ended. Also, whatever makes you think an UBI is "socialism"? It is not. It is a very capitalist idea, because the main idea is to preserve the market.
Let me see, Linux since 1994 in my case? Sure, I also have Windows for gaming, but as soon as Win7 goes out of service, gaming is the only thing I will be doing on Windows and it will get exactly the network access needed for that, nothing else. For the occasional use of MS Office, I will use a Win7 VM under Linux with no network access.
The prices will raise, true (unless it turns out so many people were doing non-productive jobs before that prices will not actually rise), but you overlook the glaringly obvious: Prices raise per good unit, while the UBI gives you the $1000 upfront. Sure, if you buy exactly the same things, this may result in the same thing as before, but if you buy less or cheaper things, it most definitely does not.
We can already stop here, as it is quite obvious: Most people do not and cannot do jobs that require original thinking, creativity, insight, mathematics, engineering, etc. Hence their jobs can be automated, as all these things are exactly the limits machines have. And once you have a machine design that does the job, you can just copy it and eliminate all the jobs of this type. For humans, you have to train them, you have to keep them motivated, etc.
As a result, having machines do these jobs (which are maybe 80% or so of all jobs) is vastly cheaper once a good automated solution exists. As this is capitalism, the cheaper solution wins.
A guaranteed job is a job that is make-work and just burns money. The advantage of an UBI is that you can do with your time as you see fit. The disadvantage is that many people cannot do that. But economically speaking, a guaranteed job is even somewhat more expensive, as you need to provide work, a place to work and administrate the whole thing.
Personally, I favor the UBI, as I have a lot of things that interest me and that I can do. But I predict that putting a lot of people on an UBI is a recipe for disaster. They will get bored to tears, feel worthless and start doing stupid and dangerous (to themselves and others) and destructive things.
The metrically challenged will use any stupid argument to argue their bad historical system is superior. Not that many of those cave-men left, fortunately.
It is always the same crap with these "magical" storage technologies: They never result in an useful product. Remember, say, optical tape? The stuff is always 5...20 years in the future and they want money.
So you think something that does not exist is "solid" in comparison to something that does exist but it pretty useless? Strange priorities you have there...
It actually is pretty Boolean: Use it for anything real and you are a liar. Because exactly nothing that deserves the description "AI" does exist. Qualify it with "weak" and you use an obviously inappropriate term.
This is a statistics-driven automaton that has zero insight or understanding. Calling it "AI" is a marketing lie, even if the AI field has given in and calls things like this "weak AI", which is the AI without "I". As such, this machine can find statistical correlations, but it cannot do plausibility checks, because that requires insight. It cannot do predictions either, because that also requires insight. The real strength of Watson (and it is quite an accomplishment) is that unlike older comparable systems, you can feed the training data and the queries into it in natural language. This means you can train a lot cheaper, but at the cost of accuracy, as the effect described in the story nicely shows.
It is time for this "AI" hype to die down. All it shows is that many people do not chose to use what they have in general intelligence and rather mindlessly follow a crows of cheer-leaders.
Well, there is a difference between a scientific experiment and a gifted amateur doing it intuitively. The most important one here is that the effect gets quantified and documented.
Terrorism does not work as an approach to fight for freedom. For one thing, you hit almost exclusively people that are not the source of the problem. For another, you just give the fascists an excuse to further their agenda of removing freedoms. In addition, under this threat, many people will flock to authoritarians that promise to "do something", regardless of whether they actually can. Makes the whole thing not only morally reprehensible, but also hugely counter-productive. One of the reasons why quite a bit of "terrorism" is actually staged or artificially created by those in power.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever heard of "taxes"? Probably not, it is a historic idea where you apparently know how it ended.
Also, whatever makes you think an UBI is "socialism"? It is not. It is a very capitalist idea, because the main idea is to preserve the market.
Let me see, Linux since 1994 in my case? Sure, I also have Windows for gaming, but as soon as Win7 goes out of service, gaming is the only thing I will be doing on Windows and it will get exactly the network access needed for that, nothing else. For the occasional use of MS Office, I will use a Win7 VM under Linux with no network access.
Your high horse is made from hot air. There is nothing "immoral" or "unethical" here.
The prices will raise, true (unless it turns out so many people were doing non-productive jobs before that prices will not actually rise), but you overlook the glaringly obvious: Prices raise per good unit, while the UBI gives you the $1000 upfront. Sure, if you buy exactly the same things, this may result in the same thing as before, but if you buy less or cheaper things, it most definitely does not.
Why is AI and robotics expected to dominate?
We can already stop here, as it is quite obvious: Most people do not and cannot do jobs that require original thinking, creativity, insight, mathematics, engineering, etc. Hence their jobs can be automated, as all these things are exactly the limits machines have. And once you have a machine design that does the job, you can just copy it and eliminate all the jobs of this type. For humans, you have to train them, you have to keep them motivated, etc.
As a result, having machines do these jobs (which are maybe 80% or so of all jobs) is vastly cheaper once a good automated solution exists. As this is capitalism, the cheaper solution wins.
A guaranteed job is a job that is make-work and just burns money. The advantage of an UBI is that you can do with your time as you see fit. The disadvantage is that many people cannot do that. But economically speaking, a guaranteed job is even somewhat more expensive, as you need to provide work, a place to work and administrate the whole thing.
Personally, I favor the UBI, as I have a lot of things that interest me and that I can do. But I predict that putting a lot of people on an UBI is a recipe for disaster. They will get bored to tears, feel worthless and start doing stupid and dangerous (to themselves and others) and destructive things.
That, and the ability to analyze what a person is buying easily and without their consent, is the core of it.
It is a deeply fascist idea.
You really do not understand statistics of measurements in physical, regulated systems.
It tells us things about how long life could potentially travel through space. It is a bit hard to run a lab-experiment for 40'000 years...
The metrically challenged will use any stupid argument to argue their bad historical system is superior. Not that many of those cave-men left, fortunately.
There really is no reason for a "war on crime", except as a pretext to fight freedom and to make some people even richer.
It is always the same crap with these "magical" storage technologies: They never result in an useful product. Remember, say, optical tape? The stuff is always 5...20 years in the future and they want money.
Probably will not materialize, ever. The history of storage tech is full with "magic" solutions that never worked.
No way. This is just another "magic" storage technology that will never materialize in a product that actually works.
We are in science and engineering here. Terms have real meaning and are not defined by common use outside of that field.
So you think something that does not exist is "solid" in comparison to something that does exist but it pretty useless? Strange priorities you have there...
You will never have enough data for that.
It actually is pretty Boolean: Use it for anything real and you are a liar. Because exactly nothing that deserves the description "AI" does exist. Qualify it with "weak" and you use an obviously inappropriate term.
This is a statistics-driven automaton that has zero insight or understanding. Calling it "AI" is a marketing lie, even if the AI field has given in and calls things like this "weak AI", which is the AI without "I". As such, this machine can find statistical correlations, but it cannot do plausibility checks, because that requires insight. It cannot do predictions either, because that also requires insight. The real strength of Watson (and it is quite an accomplishment) is that unlike older comparable systems, you can feed the training data and the queries into it in natural language. This means you can train a lot cheaper, but at the cost of accuracy, as the effect described in the story nicely shows.
It is time for this "AI" hype to die down. All it shows is that many people do not chose to use what they have in general intelligence and rather mindlessly follow a crows of cheer-leaders.
Hackers only break in when security sucks. Unfortunately, that is the standard-situation these days.
They also do bad software and failed projects!
Well, there is a difference between a scientific experiment and a gifted amateur doing it intuitively. The most important one here is that the effect gets quantified and documented.
Terrorism does not work as an approach to fight for freedom. For one thing, you hit almost exclusively people that are not the source of the problem. For another, you just give the fascists an excuse to further their agenda of removing freedoms. In addition, under this threat, many people will flock to authoritarians that promise to "do something", regardless of whether they actually can. Makes the whole thing not only morally reprehensible, but also hugely counter-productive. One of the reasons why quite a bit of "terrorism" is actually staged or artificially created by those in power.
I fully agree on that.
"Anybody competent" does of course include collaborators. Mangling leading whitespace is a pretty good indicator of incompetence.