21–30 of 120 posts
I think the next bottleneck is embodiment. AI can lay the best laid plans, but who will execute it? I think a possible solution to the dual problems of AI embodiment and unemployment is humans becoming avatars for AI. Imagine one of the unskilled masses donning a headset and being guided through all manner of work? Roofing, ACHVAC, stocking shelves, etc… No need to train anybody.
An expert in physics still needs to write code in python to do their math and analysis. Its an intelligence issue. That person needs to learn a tool.
In medicin you have the modern labs which automate a lot and you have the old labs. These 'neolabs' are better because of intelligence.
A doctor doing a diagnosis can say 'no clue' or can give you a proper answer. The more intelligent this person is, the better the answer.
I think the next bottleneck is embodiment. AI can lay the best laid plans, but who will execute it? I think a possible solution to the dual problems of AI embodiment and unemployment is humans becoming avatars for AI. Imagine one of the unskilled masses donning a headset and being guided through all manner of work? Roofing, ACHVAC, stocking shelves, etc… No need to train anybody.
The question is: do we still have to work? If not, who will take all the wealth?
We thought the washing machine would have giving us so much free time, because it used to take a full day a week. Instead, we only got more frantic it seems and started putting in more labor. But what will happen when that labor is worthless?
In a dystopian world, the elite may be better off just killing the lower, middle and even the higher classes. Keep just enough people to have an interesting gene pool around. Because even in the space mines there will be no need for human labor anymore.
In my work, I have always found that the main "blocker" (I hesitate to use the term "bottleneck"), is human nature. If we design stuff to be used by humans (what I generally do), then it's imperative to take basic human nature into account, and that can be incredibly annoying. Annoying, or not, human nature is a major factor, and won't go away, no matter how many times we tap our heels together. I think it was Philip…
Thats just not true and we see this in medicine and research. An expert in physics still needs to write code in python to do their math and analysis. Its an intelligence issue. That person needs to learn a tool. In medicin you have the modern labs which automate a lot and you have the old labs. These 'neolabs' are better because of intelligence. A doctor doing a diagnosis can say 'no clue' or can give you a proper an…
> In medicine you have the modern labs which automate a lot and you have the old labs. These 'neolabs' are better because of intelligence.
The author is not denying that a lab can be more effective with intelligence, they're arguing that this entire phase of the process of improving health is not the bottleneck.
I think the next bottleneck is embodiment. AI can lay the best laid plans, but who will execute it? I think a possible solution to the dual problems of AI embodiment and unemployment is humans becoming avatars for AI. Imagine one of the unskilled masses donning a headset and being guided through all manner of work? Roofing, ACHVAC, stocking shelves, etc… No need to train anybody.
Maybe I‘m missing the joke though.
I'm frankly pessimist that we will be able to fix those systems in a humanist way, at least not in my lifetime. If we were any good at it, we wouldn't have extreme inequality, nor our educations systems would be in tatters, and we wouldn't cast ballots propping up politicians whose best skill is ragebait.
However, if fixing the system is not an option, access to cheap technology and intelligence could help a lucky few circumvent those systems. And guess what the lucky few at the head of the AI companies will say then... Not necessarily the worst outcome, since most people will find more viable to equip a private biolab in the basement of their countryside manor than fixing the medical system of first world economies.
[^1] For the record, I think that would be better than running on xenophobic slogans.
I think the guy is right on point at least when it comes to therapies. But he is also missing one major angle: we are no longer in control; our systems are. If we were to vote on the issue, I suspect that a narrow majority would prefer cheaper housing, and a total majority would prefer cancer to be cured. But there's no direct mechanism of any kind to exercise that vote. Not in USA, not in Europe, not in China. When/…
I think the guy is right on point at least when it comes to therapies. But he is also missing one major angle: we are no longer in control; our systems are. If we were to vote on the issue, I suspect that a narrow majority would prefer cheaper housing, and a total majority would prefer cancer to be cured. But there's no direct mechanism of any kind to exercise that vote. Not in USA, not in Europe, not in China. When/…