Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

edge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 172 posts

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#71

Post by TeMPOraL »

IanDrake wrote: post #67
TeMPOraL wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that this time we're running out of work we could give to those who will get displaced by machines. Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs, but we've already reached the point when people are starting to ask, if working for the sake of working makes any sense.

>Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs What is an example of a non-government bullshit job?

Most of the advertising industry, and resources they draw from other industries, e.g. print (think printing leaflets).

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#72

Post by TeMPOraL »

nkrisc wrote: post #68
TeMPOraL wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that this time we're running out of work we could give to those who will get displaced by machines. Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs, but we've already reached the point when people are starting to ask, if working for the sake of working makes any sense.

At that point perhaps our society will have to recognize that we've reached the point where we simply don't need the entire population working. There's nothing inherently wrong with a fraction of the population working to support the rest of it, assuming everyone's on board. It might not be a easy change, but I imagine something like that will happen eventually.

Hence, IanDrake's point 2) in the comment upthread.

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#73

Post by IanDrake »

nkrisc wrote: post #68
TeMPOraL wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that this time we're running out of work we could give to those who will get displaced by machines. Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs, but we've already reached the point when people are starting to ask, if working for the sake of working makes any sense.

At that point perhaps our society will have to recognize that we've reached the point where we simply don't need the entire population working. There's nothing inherently wrong with a fraction of the population working to support the rest of it, assuming everyone's on board. It might not be a easy change, but I imagine something like that will happen eventually.

>assuming everyone's on board

I'm on board with surfing all day while you maintain the robots to make my food. Is that cool with you?

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#74

Post by TeMPOraL »

hyperbovine wrote: post #44
IanDrake wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question for me is: What is motivating otherwise very intelligent people to promote the idea that AI will take all our jobs and/or enslave us? Possible answers: 1) To prop up their investments in AI to get higher valuation. 2) To reach a political goal, such as basic income, which is often justified as necessary in a world where computers and robots take over the work force. 3) ?

A lot of intelligent people are promoting the idea that AI will take a lot of our jobs, for the simple reason that a lot our jobs do not require that much I. Whether it's driving a truck, plowing a field, or making food at a McEatery, a frighteningly large proportion of our economy consists of tasks which can be automated by technology coming online in the next decade or two.

Here's a big task that is a) not directly related to computers, and b) the coming wave of automation can't take away - maintenance. All those buildings, tracks, machines, etc. can't clean and fix themselves. We can't jump over everything with the standard market approach of making cheap disposable crap and replacing it wholesale when some component breaks. There's infrastructure. Like water mains, electrical conduits and cabling, etc.

We need one more breakthrough before we can free people from jobs - self-maintaining machines. Which will probably involve self-healing materials. Imagine if you could simplify maintaining underground cables to just making sure there's enough nutrient-rich fluid around them. Then we could automate the production and delivery of such fluid, and we'd be done.

The future without jobs is the future where our infrastructure heals itself, just like our bodies do.

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#75

Post by TeMPOraL »

IanDrake wrote: post #73
nkrisc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point perhaps our society will have to recognize that we've reached the point where we simply don't need the entire population working. There's nothing inherently wrong with a fraction of the population working to support the rest of it, assuming everyone's on board. It might not be a easy change, but I imagine something like that will happen eventually.

>assuming everyone's on board I'm on board with surfing all day while you maintain the robots to make my food. Is that cool with you?

Not GP, but yeah, it's cool with me. I can use some break from coding my own projects, but not too much. :).

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#76

Post by eanzenberg »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #65
gearhart wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst the "enslave us" thing is a bit alarmist, regarding it taking our jobs there's a certain analogy here with mechanisation. You pointed out (below) that historically people have often been terrified that machines would take all of our jobs, and that terror has turned out to be unfounded. But they weren't wrong, they were just wrong in thinking it would be a bad thing. Over the last 150 years, the proportion of A…

The difference is that this time we're running out of work we could give to those who will get displaced by machines. Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs, but we've already reached the point when people are starting to ask, if working for the sake of working makes any sense.

Wat. I keep hearing the argument that there "won't be useful work to be done soon." Considering that a median house still costs 4x yearly median salary means that not only do we live in a resource-scarce world but we will continue to for a long time.

Just because you don't "see" the work humans currently do doesn't allow you to be ignorant to it happening. Just because you personally don't want to work (as most people) doesn't mean there isn't plenty out there for people to do.

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#77

Post by eanzenberg »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #71
IanDrake wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, we can keep inventing bullshit jobs What is an example of a non-government bullshit job?

Most of the advertising industry, and resources they draw from other industries, e.g. print (think printing leaflets).

Let's elect dictator TeMPOraL to tell society what he/she deems worthy of human ouptut. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong.

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#78

Post by TeMPOraL »

stepvhen wrote: post #55
apsec112 wrote: post #21

This article seems very confused. Most importantly, it doesn't distinguish between what AI can do right now , and what the theoretical limit of AI is, in 50 or 100 or 500 years. Everyone agrees that AI today, and in the near future, doesn't even vaguely resemble a "person". That doesn't imply that much more powerful, "person-like" AI will forever be impossible. Airplanes weren't a practical means of travel in 1910, b…

Religion itself does a lot of hand waving, and people tend to talk about the "existential threat" of AI with a lot of hand waving. Its an easy comparison to make. Also, a claim, by itself, can't be a religion. It would need people to attach to it with a certain fervor. >it doesn't distinguish between what AI can do right now, and what the theoretical limit of AI is, in 50 or 100 or 500 years. AI, by itself, cannot in…

There's a pretty cool story about underestimating bit-flipping :).

http://lesswrong.com/lw/qk/that_alien_message/

Besides, just look at us, humans. Who would ever build an AI and then keep it away from any means of communication? That wouldn't be a very useful AI. If one wants that, one can pick a rock and imagine it has a mind. Or talk to a cat.

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#79

Post by TeMPOraL »

eanzenberg wrote: post #77
TeMPOraL wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the advertising industry, and resources they draw from other industries, e.g. print (think printing leaflets).

Let's elect dictator TeMPOraL to tell society what he/she deems worthy of human ouptut. Whatcouldpossiblygowrong.

Why thank you, but sadly, I must refuse. I am yet too stupid to hold such position responsibly. :).

Re: The Myth of AI – Jaron Lanier

#80

Post by Houshalter »

gearhart wrote: post #62
IanDrake wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real question for me is: What is motivating otherwise very intelligent people to promote the idea that AI will take all our jobs and/or enslave us? Possible answers: 1) To prop up their investments in AI to get higher valuation. 2) To reach a political goal, such as basic income, which is often justified as necessary in a world where computers and robots take over the work force. 3) ?

Whilst the "enslave us" thing is a bit alarmist, regarding it taking our jobs there's a certain analogy here with mechanisation. You pointed out (below) that historically people have often been terrified that machines would take all of our jobs, and that terror has turned out to be unfounded. But they weren't wrong, they were just wrong in thinking it would be a bad thing. Over the last 150 years, the proportion of A…

The industrial revolution created a ton of jobs. Lots of people were needed in the factories. The industrial revolution wasn't about automating jobs that had existed before, it was about increasing productivity. A single skilled craftsmen could only make 1 chair a day, but 100 children working in a factory could make 1,000 chairs a day.

The only people who lost jobs were skilled craftsmen, who made up a tiny percent of the population anyway. And they weren't really lost, just replaced with lots of unskilled work.

Agriculture automation came years later, and the farmers weren't entirely screwed because they mostly still owned the land. If you own the robot that replaces you, you aren't necessarily worse off.

The coming technological revolution is entirely about automation. And not just automating skilled jobs, but most unskilled ones. A large percent of the population will be affected.

Post reply on HN