> Two of the biggest risks I see emerging from the software revolution - AI and synthetic biology
Also nanotech, mind uploading, embryo selection...
The Software Revolution
71–80 of 397 posts
Re: The Software Revolution
#72I think as we progress we are increasing the level of skill-set required to get a job. Industrial jobs wouldn't have required anything other than vigor and endurance. As we moved to clerical jobs, being literate, and a typist became necessary and in the future, it is possible that a certain level of programming competence might become a pre-requisite. As we will be creating high functioning AI, robots and self-drivin…
Computers and robots have not yet even existed for an entire lifetime. It is as shortsighted as saying the world must be flat because that is what I know to say we can never create a technological singularity.
Re: The Software Revolution
#73I don't necessarily buy the "AI can end humanity" thing. As a cliche that's become very easy to repeat, but I've yet to see a postulated mechanism by which it could actually happen that isn't pure SF. The ending of human life would not be so easy for computers to accomplish. But on the subject of concentration of power and the wide-scale elimination of low- and middle-range jobs I think he is dead on. I fear that the…
Sidetrack, but I'm curious. What do you mean by "a postulated mechanism by which it could actually happen that isn't pure SF"? It reads as if you're asking for a mechanism for a future technological event explained purely in terms of present technology. The whole "existential risk" concerns aren't about what present systems can do, they're about what future self-improving system might do. If we postulate this hypothe…
I'd imagine GP's point is something along the lines of https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ that if all of the currently-moving machines were suddenly bent on destroying humanity, most humans would not be in much danger because they don't really have that capability on the necessary scale.
Re: The Software Revolution
#74"Trying to hold on to worthless jobs is a terrible but popular idea." I'm not sure I agree with this proposition. When I was in India, I noticed a large amount of roadwork was being done by men with shovels and other fairly low tech. I asked about it, and was told, to paraphrase, "Sure, we could do it better and faster with machines, but it is better for society to provide employment to those who would otherwise be u…
I argue it's NOT laudable. What should happen instead is the road should be fixed more efficiently.
It's not fair for those commuting on the roads to have to wait longer. It's not fair to those paying to have the roads fixed to pay more.
If you want to do charity, then do charity. If you want to fix roads, then fix roads.
Re: The Software Revolution
#75"Trying to hold on to worthless jobs is a terrible but popular idea." I'm not sure I agree with this proposition. When I was in India, I noticed a large amount of roadwork was being done by men with shovels and other fairly low tech. I asked about it, and was told, to paraphrase, "Sure, we could do it better and faster with machines, but it is better for society to provide employment to those who would otherwise be u…
I knew I would hear these objections... and I still stand by my assertion in general.
Re: The Software Revolution
#76This was a good post.
Synthetic Biology is a big concern, and not just that people may deliberately use it to cause harm (which is definitely a concern as well).
My grandfather was an engineer during the 50's early 60's working with nuclear bomb projects. He was there when they exploded the Bikini Atolls. I never met him because he died of cancer in his mid 40's (maybe not occupational hazard but then again....). Because they had started using technology only partially figured out and not thought all the way through. Never mind that they were using it to produce horrible things.
I'd like to think we would learn, and next time will be different, but the reality is, probably not. We will likely repeat the exact mistakes of hubris and rushing. Especially with a technology less controllable by central authority than nuclear ability. I don't know about everyone else here, but I very seldom write a program that just works the first time. And there is a lesson in there somewhere. Especially when you don't get second chances.
But I'm not dumb enough to wish knowledge away either. So I suppose we will eventually adjust. If we are still here that is.
Re: The Software Revolution
#77"Trying to hold on to worthless jobs is a terrible but popular idea." I'm not sure I agree with this proposition. When I was in India, I noticed a large amount of roadwork was being done by men with shovels and other fairly low tech. I asked about it, and was told, to paraphrase, "Sure, we could do it better and faster with machines, but it is better for society to provide employment to those who would otherwise be u…
"Sure, we could do it better and faster with machines, but it is better for society to provide employment to those who would otherwise be unemployed." And you believed that? It comes down to money -- there are plenty of people in India willing to work for essentially nothing, and so labor is cheaper than equipment. There's nothing altruistic here... businesses in the US or anywhere else would be happy to replace mach…
[deleted]
Re: The Software Revolution
#78I don't necessarily buy the "AI can end humanity" thing. As a cliche that's become very easy to repeat, but I've yet to see a postulated mechanism by which it could actually happen that isn't pure SF. The ending of human life would not be so easy for computers to accomplish. But on the subject of concentration of power and the wide-scale elimination of low- and middle-range jobs I think he is dead on. I fear that the…
Sidetrack, but I'm curious. What do you mean by "a postulated mechanism by which it could actually happen that isn't pure SF"? It reads as if you're asking for a mechanism for a future technological event explained purely in terms of present technology. The whole "existential risk" concerns aren't about what present systems can do, they're about what future self-improving system might do. If we postulate this hypothe…
By "pure SF" I mean the realm of pure imagination, unfounded in any actual emerging present circumstance. As far as I know the human race has not yet invented anything more powerful than our ability to control it, with a life both longer than ours and independent of any support from us. So worrying that such a thing might be invented and then wipe us out seems little different than worrying that something all-powerful might simply appear from some unknown place and wipe us out. Neither fear is very instructive or clarifying with regards to policy, imo.
Re: The Software Revolution
#79The Economist did a special report on the "third wave" of the information age/information revolution. It focuses more on the economic impacts (big surprise there!) but was very interesting and worth a read - I hope you can get the article without a subscription... incognito mode usually works well enough. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21621156-first-... It's hard to see what people will actually do for…
Yes, it's a crazy idea. Paying people out of the revenue gained by advertising to them has some fairly obvious limitations.
I don't know what the deal with those Bitcoin tips is. Personally I find it weird and creepy and never cash them - it feels like a ploy to tie user identities on multiple sites together, or something like that - but I have zero evidence to support that.
Re: The Software Revolution
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if you're asking sama about his opinion or if you want others to chime in. A popular answer among the HN crowd that I tend to agree with is to tax the wealthy and distribute the proceeds to the poor via a "basic income" scheme.
> distribute the proceeds to the poor via a "basic income" scheme Basic income goes to both the poor and the rich. It's universal. The net affect may be redistributive, but there's no preference given to the recipient's income level. Most rich people would just take the basic income as a small tax break, but they're still getting it. I know you know this, but it's important to frame this issue properly if you want to…
> Most rich people would just take the basic income as a small tax break, but they're still getting it.
Right, I wasn't clear about this but you're correct that the idea is that technically everybody is given the same amount in one form or another.