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

The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 268 posts

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#181

Post by industriousthou »

masonic wrote: post #154
shams93 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly we could have a society oriented around the arts and sciences, pure creativity and discovery instead of bullshit jobs we could put the pedal to the metal in human freedom and innovation.

Do you see much "creativity and discovery" coming out of present-day homeless shelters and encampments?

I mean, the whole idea is that if people have their basic needs met, they'll be able to be more creative and productive. Homeless people are the perfect counter example.

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#182

Post by bamboozled »

goda90 wrote: post #33
problems wrote: post #7

People have been saying this kind of thing forever. They said it about agriculture, they said it when the Luddites attacked factories, they said it about farm automation, they said it when computers were becoming popular. I'm not so sure that this time is different - despite all the insistence, I'm sure it seemed just as serious every other time before too.

Those things freed up people to do more things that require mental instead of physical labor. Now that we're automating mental labor, what is left to shift to? Spiritual and emotional labor? I struggle to envision how we can continue to keep people prospering in a money based economy on just those kinds of work.

I tend to agree with the OP.

There is still a lot of manual being performed around the world, and there is a lot more mental work to be done than in say, 1800. Also, any current AI technology isn't flawless, so it's probably better used to augment a professionals abilities. That's not to say the machines are not better at something like detecting skin cancer, but it's probably not a bad idea to get a second opinion, I'm not sure it would be wise to hand over the controls 100% just yet.

Unless endlessly self-improving, omnipotent, omnipresence AI systems become a reality (skeptical), and decide they want to hang around on Earth and do our dirty work for us (also skeptical), then, I think we should worry more about fixing human problems immediately, like climate change and getting rid of nuclear weapons.

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#183

Post by nojvek »

gozur88 wrote: post #96
TheSmiddy wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that giving someone just enough money to live will kill their motivation is insane. If that were true why do people still work 40+ hour weeks when they could be earning enough to live on just 15? Most UBI schemes are initially targeting around 1k per month which is nowhere near enough satisfy the vast majority of people.

>If that were true why do people still work 40+ hour weeks when they could be earning enough to live on just 15? There are all sorts of practical reasons why it's difficult to work 15 hours every week, the biggest of which is employers don't want to hire you. If you're flipping burgers, sure, but it's pretty rare to find that arrangement for a professional job.

When everyone working 40 hours they are getting paid a lot more. They can afford high rents and mortgages. Even as a software engineer I struggle with rent and don't leave much for savings.

When a robot is doing low skilled jobs and education is insanely expensive like it is now, the gap is inevitable.

Capital buys AI allowing one person to do the work of many and reap the rewards of it. America is built on this very idea.

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#184

Post by Turing_Machine »

industriousthou wrote: post #181
masonic wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you see much "creativity and discovery" coming out of present-day homeless shelters and encampments?

I mean, the whole idea is that if people have their basic needs met, they'll be able to be more creative and productive. Homeless people are the perfect counter example.

No. Homeless people almost all have mental illness, substance abuse problems, or some combination of the two.

I'm not seeing why you and the OP think they are representative of the general population in any way. They are, pretty much by definition, people who are too messed up to function in society.

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#185

Post by vegiraghav »

nojvek wrote: post #183
gozur88 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If that were true why do people still work 40+ hour weeks when they could be earning enough to live on just 15? There are all sorts of practical reasons why it's difficult to work 15 hours every week, the biggest of which is employers don't want to hire you. If you're flipping burgers, sure, but it's pretty rare to find that arrangement for a professional job.

When everyone working 40 hours they are getting paid a lot more. They can afford high rents and mortgages. Even as a software engineer I struggle with rent and don't leave much for savings. When a robot is doing low skilled jobs and education is insanely expensive like it is now, the gap is inevitable. Capital buys AI allowing one person to do the work of many and reap the rewards of it. America is built on this very…

well robots arent just doing low skilled jobs here. They are on the verge of replacing many white collaar jobs

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#186

Post by chadcmulligan »

codexon wrote: post #174
chadcmulligan wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the bit I can't understand about the nay sayers. AI promises a world of everything you could want. The problem is the current way of assigning goods (money for labour) is obsolete. The really funny thing (to me) is the people who'd benefit most by this are the ones wailing the most. It's the disconnects that confuse me the most. "What about houses, how can we afford a house without a job?" is a complaint I he…

> Like for some reason AI won't reduce construction costs to near 0. Ok and how will you pay the guy who owns the lumber if you have nothing he wants? And the guy who owns the construction bots? And the owner of the land?

Yes, thats what I'm wondering - when you have a fully automated supply chain that builds houses with 0 labour (probably never be 0, but near enough for the sake of argument). Lets say we have a world that everything is automated to produce all the stuff we need.

Then how do you pay for that stuff because no one will be working. Also what will prompt people to make new machines to build new stuff?

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#187

Post by kisstheblade »

I think we will laugh at this "AI threat" in 30 years after yet another long "AI winter". I mean I haven't been convinced of any "AI" displayed. All just seems to be glorified pattern matching with little practical use. I mean siri and cortana and alexa are all dumb as sh*t. Sure some cars can negotiate some clearly marked streets in nice weather. I don't think there is an automatic leap from these technologies to more advanced AI that actually would for example enable totally autonomous cars. Sure there are incremental improvements in robotics etc that helps to raise the efficiency of some operations but then the humans can move on to different jobs and enable other things. Eg. radiology where humans can treat people some AI has marked the scans as "suspect". So better treatment because of "AI", but the doctor still has a job.

Also, manufacturing jobs have _not_ been falling, far from it. This all seems like a big ruse for globalists to use to lower wages and move jobs to the currently cheapest place, where ever that may be. "It's AI I tells you, luddites!"

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#188

Post by AnthonyMouse »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #167
lowpro wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything, including art, follows supply and demand. Value is the point where they meet. Salaries of social works and EMTs are where the supply of those positions meet the need for those positions in any certain area. Art has a defined supply and demand, where the supply is high and demand is low (probably due to the fact you can buy copies of famous masterpieces for very cheap).

> Everything, including art, follows supply and demand. It isn't about supply and demand, it's about transaction costs. Suppose you could create a work of art that fifty million people would each value at 25c, so total value of two million dollars. Far more than enough to pay your wages for a year. But if you actually try to charge them, the credit card company wants 30c + 3% per person (consuming more than the entir…

And obviously to total $2M at 25c requires 8M customers rather than 50M if you actually divide by .25 instead of multiplying by 25, so that's even easier.

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#189

Post by thomyorkie »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #186
codexon wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like for some reason AI won't reduce construction costs to near 0. Ok and how will you pay the guy who owns the lumber if you have nothing he wants? And the guy who owns the construction bots? And the owner of the land?

Yes, thats what I'm wondering - when you have a fully automated supply chain that builds houses with 0 labour (probably never be 0, but near enough for the sake of argument). Lets say we have a world that everything is automated to produce all the stuff we need. Then how do you pay for that stuff because no one will be working. Also what will prompt people to make new machines to build new stuff?

foglets perhaps will do the trick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_fog

Re: The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet – It’s the End of the Middle Class

#190

Post by sologoub »

nodamage wrote: post #105
sologoub wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On "trust fund children", the lifestyle of a few loud examples is likely painting an unrepresentative picture to the masses. I'd love to see some real stats or study on people who inherited substantial wealth. On one hand, society seems to argue that inherited privilege perpetuates itself, which means that wealthy offspring are succeeding, sometimes despite their abilities. On the other, we have the stereotype of "tr…

I don't see the contradiction? If you inherit a lot of wealth you're likely to remain wealthy. Simultaneously you may not be motivated to work much and contribute to society.

So how do you remain wealthy if, following the social stigma, you make all the "wrong decisions" and squander the money?

Maintaining wealth takes work too.

Post reply on HN