U.S. companies put record number of robots to work in 2018 (All-purpose A.I. awareness thread)

[NoCalMike]

57 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said:

In some respects I don't get the whole fear of AI one day taking over our world and enslaving humanity. Why would they have the desire to if they straight up don't have desire? You need chemistry and combustion for desire and fear as well. You need a gut with bacteria and who knows how many untold numbers of inputs and biological sensory systems to have complex emotions that would give rise to these impulses we worry about.

 

Someone should email Skynet and find out.  Honestly who knows, whether eventually machines could actually have self awareness and/or conscious.  What if they view their role on the earth as something else other than to be a worker bee?   Maybe they follow the trajectory of the human mind, but at a faster rate?  Maybe this is all nonsense dreamed up by James Cameron?  Who knows at this point.

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, Fresh8686 said:

In some respects I don't get the whole fear of AI one day taking over our world and enslaving humanity. Why would they have the desire to if they straight up don't have desire? You need chemistry and combustion for desire and fear as well. You need a gut with bacteria and who knows how many untold numbers of inputs and biological sensory systems to have complex emotions that would give rise to these impulses we worry about.

 

Because it's almost destined for us to insist on making machines that can think like us, but we historically don't like being told what to do.

[twa]

2 hours ago, FanboyOf91 said:

Your annual reminder that HR Block has successfully lobbied to prevent automated prefilled tax returns.

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/filing-taxes-could-be-free-simple-hr-block-intuit-lobbying-against-it

 

filing 1040 ez is free online,maybe basic 1040A as well.

 

ya are kinda lazy if you can't fill those out with help. 

[Jumbo]

i don't have a lot of time, but want to make it clear i prefer robots---not even close

 

 

 

[tshile]

4 hours ago, No Excuses said:

The really odd aspect of AI is that what we call “AI” today is really not that sophisticated to begin with. Right now this is a buzz word thrown around by the tech sector to classify any device or program that relies on machine learning to some capacity. 

 

“AI” will get interesting when we start approaching what is considered Artificial General Intelligence. i.e. AI that can perform at human-intelligence levels. What you call “AI” today is not even as sophisticated computationally as the brain of a roundworm. 

 

This is a good primer on AI, looking at three levels: narrow (what we have today), general and super. When we get to AGI or hypothetically ASI, that opens up some serious issues that goes beyond “omg the robots are taking our jobs”. 

You sound like one of my AI professors first day of lecture. 

 

He was the best teacher I ever had and those were the best class I ever took. I could spend the rest of my life taking classes like that and be happy. 

[Renegade7]

2 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Someone should email Skynet and find out.  Honestly who knows, whether eventually machines could actually have self awareness and/or conscious.  What if they view their role on the earth as something else other than to be a worker bee?   Maybe they follow the trajectory of the human mind, but at a faster rate?  Maybe this is all nonsense dreamed up by James Cameron?  Who knows at this point.

 

When people like Stephen Hawkins and Elon Musk warn about AI, I don't believe "who knows" is the right approach.  There's been a lot of research on where this could go if we keep going there, media and literature just makes that research more digestible for the masses.

[ixcuincle]

16 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

Well yes, "AI" to a lot of people is Skynet/Terminators/Robots etc etc......haha.   In reality a lot of AI that will displacing people in the admin/clerical/cubicle jockey industry is simply bots loaded with code that can process things.   

 

I also don't assume support for UBI or anything like it will be popular any time soon.  I suppose much like climate change, it is an issue some folks are hoping we take a pro-active approach to before we are on the other side of it.   How many people go outside on a nice spring day and say "see, Climate change is a hoax"  Lots of issues that don't effect enough people this very second are scoffed at as not a legitimate problem.

 

I'll say again, I am no expert on this, just a guy on a message board who has heard some pretty compelling arguments and much of the push back I hear about it varies from "oh no, Socialism" to arguing that the upcoming massive shift in the economy is merely the same as the industrial revolution where people just need to find other jobs.  I think the difference here is that the scale of what automation will be able to take away from human workers will be something not seen before. Won't be today, or tomorrow, but in the next 20-50 years I think it is a real possibility.

 

People tend to avoid proactive issues. "AI is pretty stupid right now." "AI is not advanced." 

 

https://www.westport-news.com/news/article/Marty-the-robot-designed-to-steal-union-13655879.php

 

 

As cute as that thing is it's already learning 

 

My fear is that we sweep this issue under the rug despite massive job loss (again the title says record number of robots were put to work in 2018) and think we can survive, or that "the market will compensate" like classical economics teaches us. But soon we will realize this is an issue that has never been faced before in civilization and we will have no answer. By that time it will be too late. 

 

LOL HE EVEN WEARS A SHIRT

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

the market will reach an equilibrium... Companies will only have the money to invest in AI if they have the sales to invest. If unemployment is too high, there won’t be enough people with money to buy things companies with AI are selling... Sure, by the time that equilibrium happens the economy might undergo a far worse depression than the great depression, but equilibrium will eventually come.

[ixcuincle]

5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

the market will reach an equilibrium... Companies will only have the money to invest in AI if they have the sales to invest. If unemployment is too high, there won’t be enough people with money to buy things companies with AI are selling... Sure, by the time that equilibrium happens the economy might undergo a far worse depression than the great depression, but equilibrium will eventually come.

this has been argued as classical economics and our economic theory is vastly out of date

 

the market cannot save us

 

 

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

35 minutes ago, ixcuincle said:

this has been argued as classical economics and our economic theory is vastly out of date

 

the market cannot save us

 

 

 

 

 

Who is going to buy the things companies are selling if the robot takes all the jobs?

 

what incentive is there to keep operating robots if there is no market for what they produce?

[TheGreatBuzz]

Decreasing the size of the population could help also.  I've been arguing for this for a while.

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

the market will reach an equilibrium... Companies will only have the money to invest in AI if they have the sales to invest. If unemployment is too high, there won’t be enough people with money to buy things companies with AI are selling... Sure, by the time that equilibrium happens the economy might undergo a far worse depression than the great depression, but equilibrium will eventually come.

 

This sounds like a "let capitalism sort it out" theory.

 

Capitalism only works with regulation.  Complete free capitalism exploits the workers for the sake of enriching the company.  An extreme example would be that ALL workers are robots and only the ownership of the company receives any of the profits of goods sold.  Imagine a grocery store manned by NOBODY.  You walk in, the store knows who you are and has cameras/sensors to detect that which you are taking with you and you're simply billed as you walk out.  Robots restock all the items as they are removed from the store, which is frankly more efficient anyhow.  People don't like interaction with store employees anyhow, so this type of grocery store would be a perfect setup for younger generations.  Hell, now that I've typed this out, I can see this happening in my lifetime.  Amazon already has pilot programs for stores similar to this, they just need to get the robots restocking the shelves.

 

So basically, you're saying that if unemployment is so high that people can't afford to go to the grocery store to feed their families... there will be equilibrium.  Like what the actual **** are you saying?

 

Let the markets sort it out is a TERRIBLE idea.  I'm not saying I know the answers, I'm not an economist.  But **** man, forcing people into starvation because they can't buy groceries is awful.  Maybe they can start a gofundme for groceries?  Seems like that's what people do these days when capitalism has priced them out of basic necessities.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

10 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

So basically, you're saying that if unemployment is so high that people can't afford to go to the grocery store to feed their families... there will be equilibrium.  Like what the actual **** are you saying?

 

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I was responding to someone saying the markets won’t reach equilibrium, and that classic economic theory doesn’t work. The market will always reach equilibrium.   It may be very painful.

 

Policy attempts to reduce the pain of the market seeking equilibrium... but the market will find equilibrium regardless, most policy now is a Jenga tower... we will see...

 

 

[Springfield]

10 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. I was responding to someone saying the markets won’t reach equilibrium, and that classic economic theory doesn’t work. The market will always reach equilibrium.   It may be very painful.

 

Policy attempts to reduce the pain of the market seeking equilibrium... but the market will find equilibrium regardless, most policy now is a Jenga tower... we will see...

 

 

 

Markets do reach equilibrium, however deft economic policy enacted by people much smarter than myself (and highly unlikely due to he current political climate) can ease that or even prevent it.

 

Not related to automations, but take the housing market crash for instance.  It was essentially caused by a LACK of regulation.  People were able to purchase houses that they couldn’t afford with little oversight and guidance by the lenders who were offering them loans.  Many companies got very rich because of it.  It was the BEST of times.  People were starting mortgage companies because they were being handed out like candy.  Literally EVERYONE was a realtor, cause they were making money off the transactions.  Buyers were scooping up houses faster than they could come to market because the cost of housing was on the steep incline.  Then people couldn’t pay their mortgages and the whole thing came tumbling down.  Biggest recession since WW2.

 

All of that could have been stopped if people smarter than myself decided to put a check on capitalism.  Part of regulations is trying to ensure that things remain in equilibrium.

 

I think technology has worked well so far because it hasn’t scooped up jobs in huge numbers all at once.  If technology continues that way then perhaps new industries will open up to allow those people who are losing their jobs to robots enough time to find new employment.  If there’s a huge boom in automation, some

major breakthrough, then all bets are off.  People will lose jobs faster than we can create new ones to find for them.

 

Its a tightrope that we are walking and asking capitalism to sort it out is like putting an elephant at one end of it.

[twa]

The housing crisis was more from poor regulation rather than the lack of it, some of the regulation contributed to it.

 

just as some regulation is driving automation and the loss of entry level jobs

[CousinsCowgirl84]

33 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Markets do reach equilibrium, however deft economic policy enacted by people much smarter than myself (and highly unlikely due to he current political climate) can ease that or even prevent it.

 

Policies cannot prevent the market from reaching equilibrium. Policy slows the markets reaction to market shocks and shifts the equilibrium point... 

 

To bring it back on topic, I don’t see an equilibrium point that has robots stealing all good paying jobs from American workers... #buildthewall #thefirewall

 

33 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Its a tightrope that we are walking and asking capitalism to sort it out is like putting an elephant at one end of it.

 

Capitalism is the tight rope.. 

[ixcuincle]

 

[China]

On 3/2/2019 at 9:26 AM, TheGreatBuzz said:

Decreasing the size of the population could help also.  I've been arguing for this for a while.

 

Now I understand the love of guns. 

[Xameil]

On 3/2/2019 at 9:26 AM, TheGreatBuzz said:

Decreasing the size of the population could help also.  I've been arguing for this for a while.

I KNEW IT..you're real name is Thanos...

[No Excuses]

3 hours ago, ixcuincle said:

John Oliver Automation piece from last night

 

He basically contradicts all the fear mongering you have been pushing.

[mcsluggo]

once again...
 

....... please remember that ALL advances in aggregate well-being come from technological progress.... every single bit of it.....  without technological progress, all we can do to get more output is work longer/harder.

 

back in the day, 99% of us toiled in the fields to make sure that there was (barely) enough to eat.   Gradually that human labor was replaced with automation and technology... and  NINETY EIGHT PERCENT OF THE POPULATION in RICH COUNTRIES LOST THEIR AGRICULTURAL JOBS.... and it was a damned good thing.      

[tshile]

What I find hilarious: people my age, that I know, simulateously crying about “AI” taking everyone’s jobs in the near future and proudly announcing they aren’t going to push their children to go to college (like their parents did to them) because you don’t need to do that to be successful. 

 

There will always be plenty of jobs. Question is whether people are skilled and educated enough to do them. 

[ixcuincle]

41 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

He basically contradicts all the fear mongering you have been pushing.

A few points but not all. At least we are bringing this issue up forefront. Most people don't care about automation or AI at this point. The more people who know and be educated about it the better

9 minutes ago, tshile said:

What I find hilarious: people my age, that I know, simulateously crying about “AI” taking everyone’s jobs in the near future and proudly announcing they aren’t going to push their children to go to college (like their parents did to them) because you don’t need to do that to be successful. 

 

There will always be plenty of jobs. Question is whether people are skilled and educated enough to do them. 

 

For a HS graduate the answer is probably no

[mcsluggo]

i always thought (in some vague, not well articulated way) that the state versus federal taxes was a constitutional issue... the different levels of government could not interfere with the others' raising of revenue...   

 

that's why muni bonds are tax exempt...and i though tit was also why state and local taxes were a deduction on federal tax forms

 

 

 

like i said...it was always hazy for me

[NoCalMike]

How the market equilibrium corrects itself