Innovindil Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 8 minutes ago, Strokes said: I think following last nights conversation, I’d be more inclined to say, how can we make the poor better off, than how do we stop the rich getting richer. Even if the two are linked. Whats your opinion on universal basic income? I have to say I’m starting to warm to the idea. Not read into this at all, but if you give everyone a basic income, whether working or not, what incentive is there to actually get a job? Or would the basic income not be enough to live on? Seems a strange idea to me, guess it has the benefit of not having to assess benefits and fill in forms all the time.
Fox Ulike Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 17 minutes ago, Strokes said: I think following last nights conversation, I’d be more inclined to say, how can we make the poor better off, than how do we stop the rich getting richer. Even if the two are linked. Whats your opinion on universal basic income? I have to say I’m starting to warm to the idea. It's an interesting idea. Are the Finns still planning on implementing a system this year? It needs a test case to see how it would work. We'd also need a cultural shift from the 'money for nothing' attitude that a lot of people have towards benefits of any kind. 7 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Not read into this at all, but if you give everyone a basic income, whether working or not, what incentive is there to actually get a job? Or would the basic income not be enough to live on? Seems a strange idea to me, guess it has the benefit of not having to assess benefits and fill in forms all the time. It could do. Remember though that the point of all this technology is to reduce the amount of time we all spend working. The Tech 'revolution' has started and huge numbers of jobs are being replaced by automation and AI. This process is only going to continue into the future. What do we do with all the workers when we no longer need them to work? Not everybody can work for 'Deliveroo' on a ZHC!
Guest Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 1 hour ago, Fox Ulike said: But don't they pay around 30% of income tax? If so, shouldn't that balance out wealth inequalities in income? They pay more simply because they have more. If they had less they'd pay less. And as everybody else would have more we all pay more.
Guest Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Young people are borrowing to cover basic living costs, warns City watchdog https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/16/young-people-are-borrowing-to-cover-basic-living-costs-warns-city-watchdog?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Fox Ulike Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Just now, toddybad said: They pay more simply because they have more. If they had less they'd pay less. And as everybody else would have more we all pay more. My question was that if the top 1% earn 20% of income - but pay 30% of income tax, then surely that means that they are a net benefit to Society as a whole?
davieG Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 9 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: It's an interesting idea. Are the Finns still planning on implementing a system this year? It needs a test case to see how it would work. We'd also need a cultural shift from the 'money for nothing' attitude that a lot of people have towards benefits of any kind. It could do. Remember though that the point of all this technology is to reduce the amount of time we all spend working. The Tech 'revolution' has started and huge numbers of jobs are being replaced by automation and AI. This process is only going to continue into the future. What do we do with all the workers when we no longer need them to work? Not everybody can work for 'Deliveroo' on a ZHC! They've been saying this all my life but aren't there now more people working now than ever. Not saying it wont happen it's just not happened yet just like the paperless office. 1
Strokes Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 21 minutes ago, Innovindil said: Not read into this at all, but if you give everyone a basic income, whether working or not, what incentive is there to actually get a job? Or would the basic income not be enough to live on? Seems a strange idea to me, guess it has the benefit of not having to assess benefits and fill in forms all the time. I think the idea is its enough to live on but not much more. The incentive i guess would probably more keeping up with jones than survival. But like we were saying last night, as the world becomes more and more automated some of us will become obsolete soon.
Strokes Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 6 minutes ago, davieG said: They've been saying this all my life but aren't there now more people working now than ever. Not saying it wont happen it's just not happened yet just like the paperless office. It wont be long in my industry before automation takes over. The systems we install are fast becoming wireless and they will soon be able to self test and report periodically themselves. Once this is complete, the required skill level is massively reduced and those on the decent money will be obsolete.
Innovindil Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 31 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: It's an interesting idea. Are the Finns still planning on implementing a system this year? It needs a test case to see how it would work. We'd also need a cultural shift from the 'money for nothing' attitude that a lot of people have towards benefits of any kind. It could do. Remember though that the point of all this technology is to reduce the amount of time we all spend working. The Tech 'revolution' has started and huge numbers of jobs are being replaced by automation and AI. This process is only going to continue into the future. What do we do with all the workers when we no longer need them to work? Not everybody can work for 'Deliveroo' on a ZHC! But this isn't the first time something like this has happened, is it? Wasn't Leicester once a huge textile city? Then all those jobs disappeared and we carried on. If all the jobs do disappear and they want to pay me to sit by the beach, I'm all for it tbh. Won't hold my breath though.
Guest Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Piece by the Dean of the Blavatnik School of Government and founder of the Global Economic Governance Programme at the University of Oxford Free market economics is on trial – governments must pass a guilty verdict https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/16/free-market-economics-is-on-trial-governments-must-pass-a-guilty-verdict?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
davieG Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 28 minutes ago, Strokes said: It wont be long in my industry before automation takes over. The systems we install are fast becoming wireless and they will soon be able to self test and report periodically themselves. Once this is complete, the required skill level is massively reduced and those on the decent money will be obsolete. Well quite lots of industries have disappeared but have been replaced. I guess what will happen is the less and highly skilled jobs will continue or increase with all the middle disappearing. We will still need people related jobs like nursing and caring and people to develop new ideas and exploit technology. I also think they'll be a big increase in environmental jobs and developing products that have less impact on the environment.
Fox Ulike Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 47 minutes ago, davieG said: They've been saying this all my life but aren't there now more people working now than ever. Not saying it wont happen it's just not happened yet just like the paperless office. 24 minutes ago, Innovindil said: But this isn't the first time something like this has happened, is it? Wasn't Leicester once a huge textile city? Then all those jobs disappeared and we carried on. If all the jobs do disappear and they want to pay me to sit by the beach, I'm all for it tbh. Won't hold my breath though. True. I think what's different this time is the advent of AI. In the past, automation was able to replace functions, and so people had to find different jobs and re-train. IT is a classic example. But what happens if AI can replace whole people? What happens when AI can monitor and repair itself? What happens when it can improve itself? Very hypothetical I know. But Capitalist economies will need to show a serious readjustment if/when this happens. Historically, the profits of automation have been passed on to business owners, rather than being shared with Society to help the economically displaced. We should all be having this conversation on the beach. OK maybe that's a bit far-fetched - but things like a standard 3-day working week within an economy built around leisure doesn't seem far-fetched.
davieG Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said: True. I think what's different this time is the advent of AI. In the past, automation was able to replace functions, and so people had to find different jobs and re-train. IT is a classic example. But what happens if AI can replace whole people? What happens when AI can monitor and repair itself? What happens when it can improve itself? Very hypothetical I know. But Capitalist economies will need to show a serious readjustment if/when this happens. Historically, the profits of automation have been passed on to business owners, rather than being shared with Society to help the economically displaced. We should all be having this conversation on the beach. OK maybe that's a bit far-fetched - but things like a standard 3-day working week within an economy built around leisure doesn't seem far-fetched. For many the working week will get shorter but they'll be different jobs arising the leisure industry for a start. I don't believe the human race is auto wired to sit around doing nothing they'll want to be involved in something be that hobbies, sport, fitness, learning etc.
Guest Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Low-level crimes to go uninvestigated in Met police spending cuts https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/16/low-level-crimes-to-go-uninvestigated-in-met-police-spending-cuts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Guest Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 English school budgets facing 'breaking point', warn headteachers https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/16/english-school-budgets-facing-breaking-point-warn-headteachers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Izzy Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 11 minutes ago, toddybad said: English school budgets facing 'breaking point', warn headteachers https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/oct/16/english-school-budgets-facing-breaking-point-warn-headteachers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard That's only your 4th Guardian article today and it's already lunchtime. Come on, you're slacking! 1
Guest Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 8 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: That's only your 4th Guardian article today and it's already lunchtime. Come on, you're slacking! Just trying to save you having to rush out to buy a copy
leicsmac Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 6 hours ago, Webbo said: S. Korea has come on massively since the war and the whole world is better off because. It would be so much better for us if we were sending countries like Bangladesh Rolls Royce's and Burberry handbags instead of aid. They have indeed, but not without massive amounts of aid - both military and materially - from the US with few strings attached; indeed until the 70's the North was actually ahead in terms of GDP and the like (thanks to their own big benefactor in the form of the USSR, of course). It was really only once the big infrastructure was in place in recent times that they became a true economic powerhouse - and getting there did take a fair bit of help before you could start offering them the Burberry handbags (REALLY popular over there btw) and they offer you the cars in return. The issue is whether or not the leading nations want to take the time and inclination to uplift other nations in a similar way. The US did it with SK because they wanted a good solid point to project power in the Pacific; is there such inclination with other places? I'm not sure. 2 hours ago, Fox Ulike said: True. I think what's different this time is the advent of AI. In the past, automation was able to replace functions, and so people had to find different jobs and re-train. IT is a classic example. But what happens if AI can replace whole people? What happens when AI can monitor and repair itself? What happens when it can improve itself? Very hypothetical I know. But Capitalist economies will need to show a serious readjustment if/when this happens. Historically, the profits of automation have been passed on to business owners, rather than being shared with Society to help the economically displaced. We should all be having this conversation on the beach. OK maybe that's a bit far-fetched - but things like a standard 3-day working week within an economy built around leisure doesn't seem far-fetched. 1 hour ago, davieG said: For many the working week will get shorter but they'll be different jobs arising the leisure industry for a start. I don't believe the human race is auto wired to sit around doing nothing they'll want to be involved in something be that hobbies, sport, fitness, learning etc. I think that Fox is right in that there will be a technological revolution (know it's been said before but I honestly believe there to be a tipping point approaching in the way described by them) and Davie is also right in that humans won't just sit around doing naff all. The good thing though is that there will be plenty of time to do stuff you like; creative hobbies, sport, even entrepreneurial stuff for extra income. I'm all for that future with a UBI attached: where automation does the work and folks can go out and choose to do stuff for extra money because they want to, not because they have the threat of no roof over their head or no food on the table if they don't.
Buce Posted 16 October 2017 Posted 16 October 2017 Chris Grayling's claims that UK can grow more dismissed as 'tripe' Farmers’ leaders are incredulous about comments that UK industry can meet demand if Britain leaves EU with no deal Chris Grayling was “talking tripe” and is “out of touch”, farming leaders have said a day after he argued in a television interview that the UK could just “grow more food” to keep prices down if Britain crashes out of the EU. The National Farmers’ Union, the Summer Berry Fruits association and the Farmers’ Union of Wales (FUW) all voiced concerns about the cabinet minister’s comments about food production made on Sunday on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show. Minette Batters, the deputy president of the NFU, said hopes that Britain could become more self-sufficient in food and less reliant on imports post Brexit was “commendable” but there was a “glaring” absence of any government policy on how farmers should achieve this. “I would say he’s out of touch with farming. Of course we want to produce more, but have the rest of the cabinet got the same view? I support what he is saying, but it’s quite hard to know how this translates. I’d like to know what Philip Hammond thinks, what Michael Gove thinks of this,” she said. “This is not about ploughing the verges to grow more food, it’s about the absence of any food policy,” added Batters. “We haven’t had a food policy for 43 years,” she said pointing out that national food and environmental policy has been led by the EU since the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973. Laurence Olins, who chairs British Summer Fruits, said: “When I saw that interview, my mouth dropped and I thought this needs to be addressed,” he said. “I was just horrified. It is just indicative of the un-coordinated way the government is approaching Brexit. Our farmers are unable to find labour this year, never mind post Brexit. “I have farmers who are moving to Portugal because they know they are able to hire people from the subcontinent. They know this. To hear Grayling come out with this tripe beggars belief,” said Olins. Grayling had told the BBC’s Andrew Marr programme on Sunday that farmers would “grow more here” and “we’ll buy more from around the world” when asked what would happen to food prices if there was no Brexit deal. “It would mean that producers, supermarkets bought more at home, that British farmers produced more, that they bought more from around the world and it would damage French producers and continental producers,” Grayling told Marr. Olins said the industry had a meeting with the environment secretary, Michael Gove, about hiring seasonal workers from the EU for the harvest and he told them to lobby their MP and talk to Amber Rudd. “This is the environment secretary,” said Olins. “Mention immigration to them and they go absolutely rigid and say the only people who can speak on this issue is the home secretary, Amber Rudd, or Theresa May,” he added. The FUW criticised Grayling’s comments, warning that sheep farmers were at risk of being wiped out unless there is a firm and urgent government promise to replace the common agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies pound for pound. The FUW said that the transport secretary seemed to have ignored research commissioned by the government that showed the “cataclysmic” impact a hard Brexit would have on British farming. Glyn Roberts, the FUW’s president, said: “Grayling seems unaware of the results of the economic modelling commissioned by his colleagues in Defra, which paint a far more complex picture for the UK’s many agricultural sectors, and suggest in some ‘harder’ Brexit scenarios UK food production would collapse.” While CAP has been criticised in the past for supporting inefficient agricultural practices, Roberts has said Welsh farmers were so impoverished they could not survive without the subsidy. Their annual income would fall from an average of £13,000 to £4,000 a year. Roberts said that the economic modelling of Defra and detailed data published by the Agricultural and Horticultural Development Board last week, “predict pretty cataclysmic collapses in many or most agricultural sectors in the event of harder Brexit ‘no-deal’ type scenarios”. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/16/chris-graylings-claims-that-uk-can-grow-more-dismissed-as-tripe 1
Alf Bentley Posted 17 October 2017 Posted 17 October 2017 6 hours ago, Buce said: Chris Grayling's claims that UK can grow more dismissed as 'tripe' Farmers’ leaders are incredulous about comments that UK industry can meet demand if Britain leaves EU with no deal Chris Grayling was “talking tripe” and is “out of touch”, farming leaders have said a day after he argued in a television interview that the UK could just “grow more food” to keep prices down if Britain crashes out of the EU. The National Farmers’ Union, the Summer Berry Fruits association and the Farmers’ Union of Wales (FUW) all voiced concerns about the cabinet minister’s comments about food production made on Sunday on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show. Minette Batters, the deputy president of the NFU, said hopes that Britain could become more self-sufficient in food and less reliant on imports post Brexit was “commendable” but there was a “glaring” absence of any government policy on how farmers should achieve this. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/16/chris-graylings-claims-that-uk-can-grow-more-dismissed-as-tripe All to be achieved while getting rid of foreign labour with no plan to replace it, and while handing all farming's essential EU subsidies to the NHS. Perhaps we'll be planting more tripe trees and cultivating more offal fields?
Sampson Posted 17 October 2017 Posted 17 October 2017 (edited) 12 hours ago, leicsmac said: They have indeed, but not without massive amounts of aid - both military and materially - from the US with few strings attached; indeed until the 70's the North was actually ahead in terms of GDP and the like (thanks to their own big benefactor in the form of the USSR, of course). It was really only once the big infrastructure was in place in recent times that they became a true economic powerhouse - and getting there did take a fair bit of help before you could start offering them the Burberry handbags (REALLY popular over there btw) and they offer you the cars in return. The issue is whether or not the leading nations want to take the time and inclination to uplift other nations in a similar way. The US did it with SK because they wanted a good solid point to project power in the Pacific; is there such inclination with other places? I'm not sure. I think that Fox is right in that there will be a technological revolution (know it's been said before but I honestly believe there to be a tipping point approaching in the way described by them) and Davie is also right in that humans won't just sit around doing naff all. The good thing though is that there will be plenty of time to do stuff you like; creative hobbies, sport, even entrepreneurial stuff for extra income. I'm all for that future with a UBI attached: where automation does the work and folks can go out and choose to do stuff for extra money because they want to, not because they have the threat of no roof over their head or no food on the table if they don't. But when it has happened before during the Industrial Revolution where Marx and Lenin thought the technological advances of industrailisation and mechanisation could lead to a workless and moneyless Utopia where no one would be exploited - and it turned out horrendously because the only way to hold it together was through having an authoritarian state who forced people to live a certain way and because forcing tens of millions of very different people to work in harmony could only be achieved by treating everyone the same which caused people to lose their individuality and their indivual choice, individual motivations and individual ideals. Whereas Capitalism is by design a far more adaptive system so just ended creating jobs in different sectors (I'm not saying it will always do this but that we shouldn't just bin Capitalism just because it stalls in the short or medium term to adapt - that is exactly what led to the rise of Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism and Fascism in the 20th Century). And it's natural that a lot of people are cynical and fearful that the exact same thing will happen again and similar movements which we spent decades trying to bring down won't all happen again - especially now anyone under 35 is too young to remember it - and the main reason we learn from history is so we don't repeat the same mistakes. That's not to say it will go exactly the same way, but where does it all lead? If we don't have to work to achieve our basic needs then who is going to work to offer to perform our luxury needs when we need them? Who is going to work to become a trained chef to cook great meals for people? Who is going to go down to the sewers and clean them out when they're blocked? Who is going to be a tax collector or dig up our roads to keep our power lines or internet lines all running and who is going to decide what new roads and infrastructure need being built? There are millions of unpleasant jobs people won't do if they don't need to fulfil their basic needs but which society needs to be done to function. And if you mean robots will be built to do *all* these things Who is going to create the equipment and computers needed so we can do all this? So they can automate it all? Are we going to get another version of Stalin and Mao's visions where they did anything to cause fast industrialisation in their country to reach a perceived Utopia - even though they became the 2 biggest mass murderers in human history in the process of doing it. How can we create robots and machines which do everything humans can and better without making them conscious and at that point aren't we enslaving conscious species? Couldn't that lead to mass revolution and robots murdering humanity? And if they could do all these things couldn't robots also do all those things you described - creative pursuits, sports, government, entrepreneurialship etc. all better than humans as well (as they would have a much better understanding of the maths of the universe and how human brains function which is all these ideas ultimately are) and if so how could humans achieve anything in those fields which anyone would care about anymore? isn't having robots who run our government, decide our fashion, do all our menial jobs, write music specifically for us, become better friends and spouses etc all a bit frightening and dehumanising? Another one of the biggest talking points at Sillicon Valley in recent years is the idea of "heaven on Earth" and the idea of creating a cloud where human consciousness can be uploaded to when we die - now even the thought of that could easily see the uprising of "techno religions" where they will do anything to drive towards this possibility including working people to death or forcing everyone to work towards it at gunpoint as Stalin and Mao did with industrialisation. And what about robot armies? Humans wouldn't even be able to rebel against their state as they have done in the past because they'd all be murdered easily for any uprising no matter how big and then replaced by robots. And there's also the problem that one not fully thought through line of code could easily lead to the death of humanity because if a robot needs to fulfil its purpose regardless of humanity than it will - and there are many potential places where Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics could break down. I find this subject really fascinating as I love technology and work in IT. But one of the things which most scares me about it is that exactly these ideas and preaching we won't have to worry anymore and can get things like food and housing for free (when nothing in life is free - it all comes at someone else's labour cost both directly and indirectly) is that I could easily see it causing a rise in radical politics and a second wave of Communism and Fascism which preaches that this new technology can lead to a Utopian society - just as the Industrial Revoloution led to - or the rise of radical new techo-religions which preach a movement in creating consciousness in the cloud after death. And it could be so so easy to end up going down that path - and this is one of the reasons why I keep bleating on about how the rise in populist hard Left and hard Right ideas in the West over the past 4 or 5 years scare me because they're proving these ideas can get through again when it seemed after WWII and the Fall of the Berlin Wall these ideas were all behind us. It's why I keep saying - what I find most scary about Trump is he's showing that bareface lying can get through and that pushing ideas which are those of an individual past congress can get through and that populists can get elected and why I find it frightening when Corbyn and Macdonnell talk about the workers seizing control of robots over their bosses too - because there's so much potential danger with these ideas getting through and people proving you can be successful with these ideas by sinply championing the common man while attacking immigrants, religious minorities or the "bourgoise" business elite - just as they were doing in the 1930s - not because these people coming through *now* might be the one which lead to destruction but because they fundamentally damage the checks and balances We've spent decades putting in place and open the door for manipulative liers, Utopianists and ideologues to get through again. Anyway sorry for the long post - but it's a fascinating subject, maybe going off the realm of politics and into philosophy a bit but either way it's something we've got to be very very wary of in the 21st century and hopefully we don't go down the same path the 20th century did - because with robots and AI we might not be able to make it to the other side like we did in the 20th century. Edited 17 October 2017 by Sampson
Guest MattP Posted 17 October 2017 Posted 17 October 2017 Just look at the absolute state of this. This is the future of this insane group of people now in the Labour party.
bovril Posted 17 October 2017 Posted 17 October 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, MattP said: Just look at the absolute state of this. This is the future of this insane group of people now in the Labour party. Completely embarrassing. It's like these nitwits that go on about the 'EUSSR' and liken Merkel to Hitler. Edited 17 October 2017 by bovril
leicsmac Posted 17 October 2017 Posted 17 October 2017 Don't apologise for the length of your reply here - you clearly are smart and have a lot of interest in the topic and I respect that. I'll address some of the points in turn. 11 hours ago, Sampson said: But when it has happened before during the Industrial Revolution where Marx and Lenin thought the technological advances of industrailisation and mechanisation could lead to a workless and moneyless Utopia where no one would be exploited - and it turned out horrendously because the only way to hold it together was through having an authoritarian state who forced people to live a certain way and because forcing tens of millions of very different people to work in harmony could only be achieved by treating everyone the same which caused people to lose their individuality and their indivual choice, individual motivations and individual ideals. Whereas Capitalism is by design a far more adaptive system so just ended creating jobs in different sectors (I'm not saying it will always do this but that we shouldn't just bin Capitalism just because it stalls in the short or medium term to adapt - that is exactly what led to the rise of Communism, Socialism, Nazi-ism and Fascism in the 20th Century). And it's natural that a lot of people are cynical and fearful that the exact same thing will happen again and similar movements which we spent decades trying to bring down won't all happen again - especially now anyone under 35 is too young to remember it - and the main reason we learn from history is so we don't repeat the same mistakes. That's not to say it will go exactly the same way, but where does it all lead? If we don't have to work to achieve our basic needs then who is going to work to offer to perform our luxury needs when we need them? Who is going to work to become a trained chef to cook great meals for people? Who is going to go down to the sewers and clean them out when they're blocked? Who is going to be a tax collector or dig up our roads to keep our power lines or internet lines all running and who is going to decide what new roads and infrastructure need being built? There are millions of unpleasant jobs people won't do if they don't need to fulfil their basic needs but which society needs to be done to function. 3 I can certainly see the correlation between greater numbers of people, getting them to act as one and having to be brutally authoritarian to do so - like you said, history has presented a whole lot of examples. However...even though that has been the case in the past, it doesn't have to be the case in the future. Treat everyone the same at a baseline level - basic rights - and let them go from there...don't try to micromanage every aspect of their lives, that simply doesn't work and is pretty heinous anyway. I think that the advancement of technology is critical in establishing that baseline. Which leads to... I'm thinking (correct me if I'm wrong) that the assumption here is that people will only do stuff like cheffing and other creative pursuits when they are motivated by the promise of material gain to do so. I think that's not an accurate assumption - people, when given the chance to do something creative, will often do it purely for the joy of doing it, and - possibly - for additional material reward. And, more importantly...they'll have chosen to do so. As for the more onerous jobs - yes, I think automation can solve a great deal of those problems, if not all of them - given that the layout for such jobs is usually pretty simple, and that's often why they're unpleasant. More on that below. 11 hours ago, Sampson said: And if you mean robots will be built to do *all* these things Who is going to create the equipment and computers needed so we can do all this? So they can automate it all? Are we going to get another version of Stalin and Mao's visions where they did anything to cause fast industrialisation in their country to reach a perceived Utopia - even though they became the 2 biggest mass murderers in human history in the process of doing it. How can we create robots and machines which do everything humans can and better without making them conscious and at that point aren't we enslaving conscious species? Couldn't that lead to mass revolution and robots murdering humanity? And if they could do all these things couldn't robots also do all those things you described - creative pursuits, sports, government, entrepreneurialship etc. all better than humans as well (as they would have a much better understanding of the maths of the universe and how human brains function which is all these ideas ultimately are) and if so how could humans achieve anything in those fields which anyone would care about anymore? isn't having robots who run our government, decide our fashion, do all our menial jobs, write music specifically for us, become better friends and spouses etc all a bit frightening and dehumanising? Another one of the biggest talking points at Sillicon Valley in recent years is the idea of "heaven on Earth" and the idea of creating a cloud where human consciousness can be uploaded to when we die - now even the thought of that could easily see the uprising of "techno religions" where they will do anything to drive towards this possibility including working people to death or forcing everyone to work towards it at gunpoint as Stalin and Mao did with industrialisation. And what about robot armies? Humans wouldn't even be able to rebel against their state as they have done in the past because they'd all be murdered easily for any uprising no matter how big and then replaced by robots. And there's also the problem that one not fully thought through line of code could easily lead to the death of humanity because if a robot needs to fulfil its purpose regardless of humanity than it will - and there are many potential places where Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics could break down. 4 Yes, I believe that automation can be applied to do all of our onerous tasks. The technology at a basic level already exists to make this possible. Given the simplicity of most of those tasks, I think it's also perfectly possible to automate such tasks without making the robots that do it too "intelligent" (not sure about that choice of word but...) Unless we develop "true" AI, robots will never be better than humans at creative arts and the like - they will always be able to imitate, but never to create - and given what you said, why would we develop robots to fulfil those purposes anyway? There would be no need for them, unlike the jobs that no one wants to do. I think that you're taking the robot development angle to a conclusion that it doesn't have to reach - it absolutely could go in the way you described if the development process that way, but being aware of such a conclusion means that we can avoid it and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for more automation on an everyday level to free up more time for humans to do things they actually want to do, rather than have to. 11 hours ago, Sampson said: I find this subject really fascinating as I love technology and work in IT. But one of the things which most scares me about it is that exactly these ideas and preaching we won't have to worry anymore and can get things like food and housing for free (when nothing in life is free - it all comes at someone else's labour cost both directly and indirectly) is that I could easily see it causing a rise in radical politics and a second wave of Communism and Fascism which preaches that this new technology can lead to a Utopian society - just as the Industrial Revoloution led to - or the rise of radical new techo-religions which preach a movement in creating consciousness in the cloud after death. And it could be so so easy to end up going down that path - and this is one of the reasons why I keep bleating on about how the rise in populist hard Left and hard Right ideas in the West over the past 4 or 5 years scare me because they're proving these ideas can get through again when it seemed after WWII and the Fall of the Berlin Wall these ideas were all behind us. It's why I keep saying - what I find most scary about Trump is he's showing that bareface lying can get through and that pushing ideas which are those of an individual past congress can get through and that populists can get elected and why I find it frightening when Corbyn and Macdonnell talk about the workers seizing control of robots over their bosses too - because there's so much potential danger with these ideas getting through and people proving you can be successful with these ideas by sinply championing the common man while attacking immigrants, religious minorities or the "bourgoise" business elite - just as they were doing in the 1930s - not because these people coming through *now* might be the one which lead to destruction but because they fundamentally damage the checks and balances We've spent decades putting in place and open the door for manipulative liers, Utopianists and ideologues to get through again. Anyway sorry for the long post - but it's a fascinating subject, maybe going off the realm of politics and into philosophy a bit but either way it's something we've got to be very very wary of in the 21st century and hopefully we don't go down the same path the 20th century did - because with robots and AI we might not be able to make it to the other side like we did in the 20th century. 7 As you can tell, I find it fascinating too - too many folks look too much at the past and not enough at the future, because that's what's really important (along with right now, of course.) I can't say that I agree with your assertion that into the future everything still won't be "free" - if (to use a hypothetical situation) food could be created out of nothing or replicated, for example, where is the labour cost in that? The maintenance of the machine that does it? Some kind of royalty to its creator? Hardly large when compared to the potential cost of the food generation it would replace...so while it's not "free" in the strictest sense, it's as good as. I share your fears regarding populism, but I view it rather differently to you - the populism right is, to my mind, pushing the superiority of one demographic over others, rather than pushing for unity amongst all. That could well be very destructive - as it has been in the past. I actually think the advancement of automation will quell those populist movements rather than emboldening them, by helping establish a baseline for society, uplift the bottom of society to a better level where they feel more comfortable. No discomfort, no need for charismatic leaders to howl on and lie about "change" and mobilise them into fearing the "other". Evidently we think differently about this, but IMO not developing that automation is the biggest threat to continued civilisation in the 21st Century, rather than developing it.
Recommended Posts