I went to this talk by an impressionable well spoken youngish academic economist who seems to mistaken warehouse labelling and basic human guided robotics from a couple decades ago for machine learning. He expressed little knowledge about science and technology, deep learning, data mining algorithms etc let alone machine learning. Also a lack of foresight on workforce trends like casual jobs, avoiding tax, being a manager, employment hierarchies, bitcoin trends, marketable tech vs prototypes, microfinancing in agrarian developing economy dynamics... just too many blindspots.
He seemed truly convinced 47% of jobs are at high risk of being lost to machines when that figure seems as arbitrary as 50% yes or no. I'm no expert at statistics but realistic when considering anomalies like the rise of casual jobs, non-taxable incomes, sub contacting, young people selling apps and making money via online, I'd forecast the rate of taxable full time positions falling to maybe 10-20% in place of casual, non taxeable income. Seems stupid to suggest 47% being lost to machines.
I don't think this chap has ever worked in a warehouse because only 1 person drives the forklift at a time due to safety regulations. If a machine is doing this it still needs someone to supervise this machine. In actuality since my uncle owns car factories, he had to employ more people after they installed robotics because of safety monitoring but of a different/ higher skillset. Instead of mechanics, engineers etc.
Machine driven warehouses require more expert monitoring. More safety regulations. Interesting he didn't even mention the fact machine driven warehouses have had to employ more ground staff in the warehouse but of a different skillset. That in actual fact companies had to employ more staff for robotic kind of warehouses. This chap was stuck on the industrial rev where machines replace panga cutters.
I'm wondering whether this stigma of academic economists being just history buff blabbers with no work experience to forecast or conduct quality research goes across the board. I noticed they make like a tenth in terms of income of what real world economists/stockbrokers make.
I wanna ask, what does machine learning mean to you?
Suss out this article, maybe that's what the speaker was hinting at?
Deep Learning Is Going to Teach Us All the Lesson of Our Lives: Jobs Are for Machines (https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.jvuha2112)
Superintelligence asks the questions: what happens when machines surpass humans in general intelligence? Will artificial agents save or destroy us? Nick Bostrom lays the foundation for understanding the future of humanity and intelligent life. The human brain has some capabilities that the brains of other animals lack. It is to these distinctive capabilities that our species owes its dominant position. If machine brains surpassed human brains in general intelligence, then this new superintelligence could become extremely powerful?possibly beyond our control. As the fate of the gorillas now depends more on humans than on the species itself, so would the fate of humankind depend on the actions of the machine superintelligence.
But we have one advantage: we get to make the first move. Will it be possible to construct a seed Artificial Intelligence, to engineer initial conditions so as to make an intelligence explosion survivable? How could one achieve a controlled detonation?
This profoundly ambitious and original audiobook breaks down a vast track of difficult intellectual terrain. After an utterly engrossing journey that takes us to the frontiers of thinking about the human condition and the future of intelligent life, we find in Nick Bostrom's work nothing less than a reconceptualization of the essential task of our time.
I agree with veri about jobs - every revolution or disruption takes away and creates new jobs in equal measure. I never buy the Hollywood story about rise of the machines. The gorilla analogy is wrong because humans did not create gorillas and other species unlike machines which are not a species. Superintelligence should cure AIDS and cancer and other endless human problems. I don't foresee any takeover or anything near it. Machines like robots will remain TOOLS for humans to use.
Then the only thing I could advise you is to read Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (https://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/1501227742)
homicide: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another;
killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately;
death: the action or fact of dying or being killed;
Then the only thing I could advise you is to read Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (https://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/1501227742)
I don't know if you have ever heard of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation: http://www.alcor.org/BecomeMember/scheduleA.html It's an organization that, for a fee, freezes people until the day when technology has improved enough to bring them back to life; they have been doing roaring business for decades. Their fees have gone down quite a bit, but it still costs much less to freeze just the head than to freeze the whole body.
Back in the 1980s, they got into trouble when they were accused of homicide. Apparently, if just the head is to be frozen, then it is best to cut it off right after death or, even better, just before death---to avoid information loss. The "trouble" was that someone had reported to the sheriff that they had done the latter, which would indeed be homicide. A little circus then ensued, with the sheriff trying to find the head and Alcor constantly moving it. But Alcor never denied cutting off the head, so the view was formed that their might be a basis for a charge of homicide. Alcor was asked to explain itself.
Alcor had this to say: Even if they had cut off the head at the alleged time, there was no basis for a charge of homicide. That might seem absurd, but it wasn't entirely so; their argument relied on how "death" was to be understood. That was critical, given how things are defined:Quotehomicide: the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another;
killing: an act of causing death, especially deliberately;
death: the action or fact of dying or being killed;
One can see the circularity; so the matter of just what "death" is became an issue. All agreed that it could be defined as "a permanent loss of life". Alcor then argued that Dora couldn't possibly be dead, because her loss of life was only temporary. To prove the latter, they assembled an impressive array of scientists, one of whom was Hans Moravec, a leading AI scientist at Carnegie Mellon.
Mr. Moravec was simply supposed to present an argument to the effect that, yes, Dora would some day return to life. That he did. But he couldn't help himself, and didn't stop there. He went on to argue that Alcor's business was quite crude: returning human remains to life was probably a waste of time, given that biological materials would just deteriorate again. He had a much better idea: Computer technology was improving so fast that one day it would be possible to download the contents of the human brain (into something life a really large USB stick today). Materials engineering was also improving to such an extent that it would one day be possible to build an artificial body that could last near-forever. All one then needed to do was upload the saved brain contents into the incredible body and get a much better product. That would be a post-human (Homo Sapiens v2.0).
Even with that, Moravec and his friends were just getting warmed up. They had other neat ideas, such as near-instant travel: Suppose a post-human in Nairobi wanted to travel to London. All he would do is arrange for a body rental in London and then transmit the contents of his brain (e.g. via the internet or radio waves or ...). (This, of course, raised other problems that could arise from having multiple copies of a person running around.)
Still, it was admitted that it would be a while before we had post-humans. But in the meantime, we could still upgrade to a trans-human ("transitory human", i.e. Homo Sapiens v1.5). That's the sort of thing people like Nick Bostrom are talking about: go to his webpage and scroll down to "Transhumanism": http://www.nickbostrom.com/
The industry is now quite busy, and there are "Transhuman Associations" all over the place, e.g.
http://www.uktranshumanistassociation.org/
http://transhumanism.org/index.php/wta/hvcs/
To get back to the question of machines taking over from humans: no need to worry; we will all have been upgraded to post-humans.
I remember when I first read a story by Larry Niven (A World Out of Time (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64725.A_World_Out_of_Time)) and got interested in Alcor. Still open to debate so I really can't say anything about it.
I'm sure you know of Ray Kurzweil who is a massive proponent of Trans humanism, although personally I think his timeline is a wee bit optimistic.
Fascinating case, thanks for sharing.
It's called being frozen to death.
The Alcor Life Extension Foundation is the world leader in cryonics, cryonics research, and cryonics technology. Cryonics is the science of using ultra-cold temperature to preserve human life with the intent of restoring good health when technology becomes available to do so.
I'd imagine whatever spirit comes back to that body wouldn't be Dora.
Why would anyone want to return back to being a baby?
The baby analogy is about life cycles. There is a time to be a baby, time to be a teen, time to die and just move on.
Does SciFi even address the nature of existence, death, truth, time, those higher concepts fundamental to being human?
There are too many inherent problems concerning zombies aka post-human that's not in line with recorded theories by the best minds in history since Socrates.
I'd imagine whatever spirit comes back to that body wouldn't be Dora.
What you don't seem to appreciate is that trans-humanism and post-humanism are labels with no history, evidence or data to back up it's existence. They're labels referred to by SciFi cults and occasionally dreamy confused academics.
Stop reading SciFi, it's not healthy.
500 years ago, it wasn't in the business of scholars to make predictions about the future. That's what soothsayers may have done and have done. It makes no difference to scholarly understandings whether an iphone, a computer, a Boeing is invented or not. These are just modes of communication, efficiency, connectness, ain't mean it adds value to knowledge. It facilitates knowledge collection, but it doesn't mean IT IS knowledge. Most of what's done in science today isn't new knowledge, it's just procedural, efficient, observational, a capitalist venture- nothing more insightful than that.
Those chaps accusing some random chic as being a witch, are like MK's leading minds today. Fantasy who should stick to their specialty areas like numbers and not slap their delusions about this number looking like an alien. Thanks to the fact most of society have evolved in the way they think about existence, not many are mindwashed by the threat of alien invasions, or the threat of witches, vampires etc.
Because there are still leading minds who value lessons learnt from history, respect data, and just evidence, keeps those fringe b@stards exposed, that that chic isn't a witch, a post-human, a trans-human, any other label slapped by delusional thinkers subservient to the media hype.
500 years ago, it wasn't in the business of scholars to make predictions about the future. That's what soothsayers may have done and have done. It makes no difference to scholarly understandings whether an iphone, a computer, a Boeing is invented or not. These are just modes of communication, efficiency, connectness, ain't mean it adds value to knowledge. It facilitates knowledge collection, but it doesn't mean IT IS knowledge. Most of what's done in science today isn't new knowledge, it's just procedural, efficient, observational, a capitalist venture- nothing more insightful than that.
Those chaps accusing some random chic as being a witch, are like MK's leading minds today. Fantasy who should stick to their specialty areas like numbers and not slap their delusions about this number looking like an alien. Thanks to the fact most of society have evolved in the way they think about existence, not many are mindwashed by the threat of alien invasions, or the threat of witches, vampires etc.
Because there are still leading minds who value lessons learnt from history, respect data, and just evidence, keeps those fringe b@stards exposed, that that chic isn't a witch, a post-human, a trans-human, any other label slapped by delusional thinkers subservient to the media hype.
500 years ago, it wasn't in the business of scholars to make predictions about the future. That's what soothsayers may have done and have done. It makes no difference to scholarly understandings whether an iphone, a computer, a Boeing is invented or not. These are just modes of communication, efficiency, connectness, ain't mean it adds value to knowledge. It facilitates knowledge collection, but it doesn't mean IT IS knowledge. Most of what's done in science today isn't new knowledge, it's just procedural, efficient, observational, a capitalist venture- nothing more insightful than that.
Or maybe, you know, the application of knowledge. Knowledge which came from the fringes of society, outside of the mainstream, from quacks and other like minded dreamy folk. Like Galileo Galilei, that madman who dared to go against the grain, who dared to dream of a future where mankind understood more and more about his environment. Galileo, that shroom munching psychedelic dreamer. Or Edison, wanting riches by applying hand-me-down knowledge of materials, vacuum, and electricity, standing upon the shoulders of dreamers before him, all to brighten our nights.
But I'm hungry so I'm going out for a pizza, made by applying many types of knowledge gained through centuries of experimentation and dreams, maybe starting from when that one batsh!t crazy caveman, going against the collective fear of the unknown, bravely took a burning twig and gave man the knowledge of controlling fire, ending thousands of years later as a way to make money by selling steaming hot pizzas or, you know, to send a man to the moon on the back of fire which the caveman never dreamed of.
But others dreamed of it, as did H.G. Wells in 1902, dreaming of it even before the Wright brother's heavier-than-air craft took first flight.
But what do we understand of knowledge, except that the pizza is just food "that came to be" and we shouldn't concern ourselves with downright ridiculous ideas like tran-humanism?
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (https://www.amazon.com/Do-Androids-Dream-Electric-Sheep-ebook/dp/B000SEGTI0), asked Mr. Dick?
Maybe they might but only if we keep on dreaming because as the caveman's fire took us to the moon, so might Moon Ki's lopping off heads make us immortal. As a baby stumbles before taking that first step, dreamers from the fringes will always believe.
Veritas seems to think that people working on these are just fringe-element nutjobs. Far from it. In Europe, the EU Commission is funding a huge "Brain Project" that includes things like this:
https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/ncp
In the USA, Kwabena Boahen---an African, I'm proud to note---at Stanford has been doing amazing "artificial brain" things, with major funding from the US National Institutes of Health and others. The NIH is not about whackos, and Boahen has impressed them enough to earn their Pioneer Award.
Listen to him here (especially second video):
And here's an example of something that not too long ago would have been considered sci-fi from crazed dreamers:
The bionic eye changing a woman's life
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-35220615
It was Copernicus and not Galileo that proposed and discovered the earth rotated around the sun. Copernicus was a man of God and was revered by the church. His stuff is still revered by the church and is stashed away in Vatican vaults. Scholars today don't study Galileo's works unless to study the warring history between the church and monarchy. Galileo's stuff, some might say, is just plagiarized Copernicanism, and his invention- a telescope. That inflated other stuff is pop media.
Galileo when you study his letters, was arrogant. He became a staunch advocate of Copernicanism and so the pope met with Galileo and proposed he can teach it at a smaller place. Reason is because the church was concerned the masses weren't ready for the truth. It was obvious among scholars, monks and so forth the earth rotated around the sun, and that Copernicanism was right- even the pope acknowledged this in his private letters. However, Galileo went screaming to the monarchy and used paupers, other monks to wage war against the church, while he lapped up in seclusion to do his thing. He was an artist and if there were politicians back then- one of the first statesmen. The political undertone to all this is, he and others were sick of the church being in charge. I empathize with that in some sense because theocracies back then had armies and were monstrous, they were the status quo- the govt, and suppressed education and knowledge sharing among the masses.
Copernicanism was mainstream among scholars- not fringe.
Edison was an inventor not a scholar. His invention has obvious consequences. Energy consumption, energy wars, CO2s, global warming, a monopoly for the rich while 70% of the globe including a majority of Kenyan households even today- use candles. Steaming hot pizza? The best tasting pizzas are brick fired- not via some electric oven .
The people you describe aren't dreamers, they were ambitious. For self glory, satisfy curiosities. Anyone can dream, but it takes ambition, hardwork, commitment and so forth to make it happen. They made the impossible possible out of blood, sweat, tears- not dreaming. Perhaps it's best to leave the I have a dream epithets to political podiums.
500 years ago, it wasn't in the business of scholars to make predictions about the future. That's what soothsayers may have done and have done. It makes no difference to scholarly understandings whether an iphone, a computer, a Boeing is invented or not. These are just modes of communication, efficiency, connectness, ain't mean it adds value to knowledge. It facilitates knowledge collection, but it doesn't mean IT IS knowledge. Most of what's done in science today isn't new knowledge, it's just procedural, efficient, observational, a capitalist venture- nothing more insightful than that.
And what is the end goal of all these "scholarly understanding" and "knowledge"? How many of your "scholars" would give up the trappings of modern life, the result of technology, to sit in a cave and think?
In 100,000 years Post-Human Me will be sitting in a space-ship, sipping a purple inter-galactic drink, and enjoying a view of the nine moons around some planet at the far end of the universe. You, on the other hand, will be part of the fossil used to decorate my ashtray. I'd like to hear what you have to "say" then.
I never wrote that Galileo was the first to suggest heliocentrism. But since we're on that topic now, Galileo was the first to prove, when he gazed upon four of Jupiter's moons, that other celestial bodies were not orbiting the earth. But some people refused to accept his word, believing geocentrism was the correct position.
When did the Catholic church apologize to Galileo? Wasn't it something like 23 years after Armstrong's giant leap for Mankind?
It's OK, you seem to fear technology and where it's leading us to. Maybe to a bad place or maybe to a good place, I wouldn't know and I doubt anyone can know.
But what I do know is that it's unstoppable, even were we to have an all out nuclear war. For that is the essence of mankind, to strive forward, questioning everything and looking to master the environment.
So just sit back and enjoy the ride.(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/52/52cfa562021c4c144f132c85c40a1ec19d1e1fedb4dc0764ed06e137d1ae826c.jpg)
I went to this talk by an impressionable well spoken youngish academic economist who seems to mistaken warehouse labelling and basic human guided robotics from a couple decades ago for machine learning. He expressed little knowledge about science and technology, deep learning, data mining algorithms etc let alone machine learning. Also a lack of foresight on workforce trends like casual jobs, avoiding tax, being a manager, employment hierarchies, bitcoin trends, marketable tech vs prototypes, microfinancing in agrarian developing economy dynamics... just too many blindspots.
He seemed truly convinced 47% of jobs are at high risk of being lost to machines when that figure seems as arbitrary as 50% yes or no. I'm no expert at statistics but realistic when considering anomalies like the rise of casual jobs, non-taxable incomes, sub contacting, young people selling apps and making money via online, I'd forecast the rate of taxable full time positions falling to maybe 10-20% in place of casual, non taxeable income. Seems stupid to suggest 47% being lost to machines.
I don't think this chap has ever worked in a warehouse because only 1 person drives the forklift at a time due to safety regulations. If a machine is doing this it still needs someone to supervise this machine. In actuality since my uncle owns car factories, he had to employ more people after they installed robotics because of safety monitoring but of a different/ higher skillset. Instead of mechanics, engineers etc.
Machine driven warehouses require more expert monitoring. More safety regulations. Interesting he didn't even mention the fact machine driven warehouses have had to employ more ground staff in the warehouse but of a different skillset. That in actual fact companies had to employ more staff for robotic kind of warehouses. This chap was stuck on the industrial rev where machines replace panga cutters.
I'm wondering whether this stigma of academic economists being just history buff blabbers with no work experience to forecast or conduct quality research goes across the board. I noticed they make like a tenth in terms of income of what real world economists/stockbrokers make.
I wanna ask, what does machine learning mean to you?
When I was a little girl, I had this dream. I opened my eyes and got up. Scores of people were lined up and kneeling with their hands covering their eyes. My mother hushed and begged me to kneel and cover my eyes. I refused. Out of nowhere, this giant eye came tumbling towards me and it watched me. Tried to scare me into submission. I refused. Life was shit after that and is still shit. But out of that came this quiet awareness, like a silent presence carrying me through the storms. A realization that the universe is a big place, that it isn't so empty, it too has its codes, it too has its truths, it too has a pragmatic purity inline with humanity's true trajectory.
When I was a little girl, I had this dream. I opened my eyes and got up. Scores of people were lined up and kneeling with their hands covering their eyes. My mother hushed and begged me to kneel and cover my eyes. I refused. Out of nowhere, this giant eye came tumbling towards me and it watched me. Tried to scare me into submission. I refused. Life was shit after that and is still shit. But out of that came this quiet awareness, like a silent presence carrying me through the storms. A realization that the universe is a big place, that it isn't so empty, it too has its codes, it too has its truths, it too has a pragmatic purity inline with humanity's true trajectory.
I had numerous experiences of that sort in my youth. Eventually I gave up weed and stopped reading Carlos Castenada.
Ah yes, Carlos Castenada. Brings back memories of reading of his peyote experiences.
I believe AI is def. happening. I just don't think it'll be as appreciated without an optimal eco-system so to allow an AI robot to flourish. It'll be like R2-D2 in Antarctica constantly freezing and not much use to a group of penguins.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/R2-D2_Droid.png)