OT: future of jobs or lack thereof

[dougthonus]

As far as technological advancement, he might be a little too optimistic but he did consult with the reputable futurists for his timelines. Even if he is too optimistic, I am a believer that it will eventually happen, probably not this decade, maybe not this century, what about by year 3000?

The "IT" he described is (IMO) unlikely to ever happen where there is more or less an instantaneous exponential growth in AI that becomes a singleton and makes these types of wide leaps.

The idea that there will be super good AI that is "smarter" than humans, I think is likely, but that it shapes itself in the way presented is only one possible scenario and one I don't find to be that likely.

[coldfish]

OK, maybe some of you tech savvy people can fill me in here.

I don't get the fear of AI. Every experience that I have had with it is . . . unimpressive. Its blatantly just a tool. A computer program written by a human. The only thing I have seen that separates an AI from just a regular program is that the AI modifies certain operational parameters (chosen by the programmer) to modify how it performs whatever task it was programmed to do.

Are there AI's out there that are actually self programming? Can an AI that was built to toast waffles decide to fly airplanes?

What am I missing?

[ImSlower]

No, there are no sentient AIs yet, or adorable Haley Joel Osment would have already knocked on your door, hoping to become a real boy some day.

Give it a week or two.

[coldfish]

No, there are no sentient AIs yet, or adorable Haley Joel Osment would have already knocked on your door, hoping to become a real boy some day.

Give it a week or two.

I guess my point is that they aren't even close. They don't even really know where to start because they don't understand what consciousness really is. Its not something like where they know what they have to do but don't have the tech to get there. Based on what I know, anything even resembling intelligence isn't in the cards.

Sure, they can make a bot that analyzes your buying preference using canned routines to give you an appropriate ad on your computer but its just a bunch of calculations and weighted averages of a database using whatever base criteria set by the human programmer. The computers are just doing what their human programmers set them up to do, just like an atari 2600. All that has changed is the speed and the ambition of the programmer.

[waffle]

my son is 14.
he wants to study robotics.
that sounds about right nowendays

As for AI. Hum. Ai IS what used to be called expert systems. An algorithm (or code) that can, fairly consistently, make a right guess. Over time (with recursive feedback of some type), it gets better at it. Logically, it should get VERY VERY Good at it if it is able to suck in (ever increasingly) granular enough info to continuously improve. But when does a guess become an instruction? "no, I am sorry sir, the AI is never wrong. ever". I think we can say with some certainty that there will be lots and lots and lots of things that we used to be able to game, tweak, fool, optimize, redirect, or just ignore that we will no longer able to do so. There will be no human interaction AT ALL. Hey, I can see the pros of that? But I sure as heck can see the negatives, including on the ol job front.

[PaKii94]

As far as technological advancement, he might be a little too optimistic but he did consult with the reputable futurists for his timelines. Even if he is too optimistic, I am a believer that it will eventually happen, probably not this decade, maybe not this century, what about by year 3000?

The "IT" he described is (IMO) unlikely to ever happen where there is more or less an instantaneous exponential growth in AI that becomes a singleton and makes these types of wide leaps.

The idea that there will be super good AI that is "smarter" than humans, I think is likely, but that it shapes itself in the way presented is only one possible scenario and one I don't find to be that likely.

Well theoretically if we were able to create a legitimate AI, it wouldn't have biological restraints that humans have (speed & capacity of the nervous system, energy requirements, sleep requirements, etc. ) so it wouldn't need millions of years to evolved. Think of how many repetitions over minutes/hours/days people as children need to learn simple math concepts. Those repetitions for an AI (with enough power) would happen in unfathomable numbers in fractions of a second. Now give it hours/days/years to learn and advance

OK, maybe some of you tech savvy people can fill me in here.

I don't get the fear of AI. Every experience that I have had with it is . . . unimpressive. Its blatantly just a tool. A computer program written by a human. The only thing I have seen that separates an AI from just a regular program is that the AI modifies certain operational parameters (chosen by the programmer) to modify how it performs whatever task it was programmed to do.

Are there AI's out there that are actually self programming? Can an AI that was built to toast waffles decide to fly airplanes?

What am I missing?

The AI you are referring to is fake AI. It's just a buzzword marketing term right now. If you read the beginnings of the article I posted earlier, it goes into the descriptions of the different types. The 'dangerous' AI doesn't exist yet.

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

No, there are no sentient AIs yet, or adorable Haley Joel Osment would have already knocked on your door, hoping to become a real boy some day.

Give it a week or two.

I guess my point is that they aren't even close. They don't even really know where to start because they don't understand what consciousness really is. Its not something like where they know what they have to do but don't have the tech to get there. Based on what I know, anything even resembling intelligence isn't in the cards.

Sure, they can make a bot that analyzes your buying preference using canned routines to give you an appropriate ad on your computer but its just a bunch of calculations and weighted averages of a database using whatever base criteria set by the human programmer. The computers are just doing what their human programmers set them up to do, just like an atari 2600. All that has changed is the speed and the ambition of the programmer.

The thing is eventually we will reach a tipping point (could be days or centuries) and it will happen. Most scientific discoveries are accidental breakthroughs. This kind of discovery could be an extinction level breakthrough if not handled correctly. Would you have predicted just 10 years ago (when the iphone was just released) how much smartphones would envelope society?

All throughout history humanity has doubted progress but it has continued on regardless.

[PaKii94]

.

.

Here is another interesting tidbit for you two-

Yes, we are no where near mapping the human brain and 'discovering' consciousness but a proof of concept has already been done on a worm brain: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-put-worm-brain-in-lego-robot-openworm-connectome

I know you guys were old enough to know the significance of the Human Genome Project. That I believe followed the mapping of fly DNA (if I recall correctly). This is similar to that.

[johnnyvann840]

As far as technological advancement, he might be a little too optimistic but he did consult with the reputable futurists for his timelines. Even if he is too optimistic, I am a believer that it will eventually happen, probably not this decade, maybe not this century, what about by year 3000?

The "IT" he described is (IMO) unlikely to ever happen where there is more or less an instantaneous exponential growth in AI that becomes a singleton and makes these types of wide leaps.

The idea that there will be super good AI that is "smarter" than humans, I think is likely, but that it shapes itself in the way presented is only one possible scenario and one I don't find to be that likely.

Well theoretically if we were able to create a legitimate AI, it wouldn't have biological restraints that humans have (speed & capacity of the nervous system, energy requirements, sleep requirements, etc. ) so it wouldn't need millions of years to evolved. Think of how many repetitions over minutes/hours/days people as children need to learn simple math concepts. Those repetitions for an AI (with enough power) would happen in unfathomable numbers in fractions of a second. Now give it hours/days/years to learn and advance

OK, maybe some of you tech savvy people can fill me in here.

I don't get the fear of AI. Every experience that I have had with it is . . . unimpressive. Its blatantly just a tool. A computer program written by a human. The only thing I have seen that separates an AI from just a regular program is that the AI modifies certain operational parameters (chosen by the programmer) to modify how it performs whatever task it was programmed to do.

Are there AI's out there that are actually self programming? Can an AI that was built to toast waffles decide to fly airplanes?

What am I missing?

The AI you are referring to is fake AI. It's just a buzzword marketing term right now. If you read the beginnings of the article I posted earlier, it goes into the descriptions of the different types. The 'dangerous' AI doesn't exist yet.

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

No, there are no sentient AIs yet, or adorable Haley Joel Osment would have already knocked on your door, hoping to become a real boy some day.

Give it a week or two.

I guess my point is that they aren't even close. They don't even really know where to start because they don't understand what consciousness really is. Its not something like where they know what they have to do but don't have the tech to get there. Based on what I know, anything even resembling intelligence isn't in the cards.

Sure, they can make a bot that analyzes your buying preference using canned routines to give you an appropriate ad on your computer but its just a bunch of calculations and weighted averages of a database using whatever base criteria set by the human programmer. The computers are just doing what their human programmers set them up to do, just like an atari 2600. All that has changed is the speed and the ambition of the programmer.

The thing is eventually we will reach a tipping point (could be days or centuries) and it will happen. Most scientific discoveries are accidental breakthroughs. This kind of discovery could be an extinction level breakthrough if not handled correctly. Would you have predicted just 10 years ago (when the iphone was just released) how much smartphones would envelope society?

All throughout history humanity has doubted progress but it has continued on regardless.

I read that article a while ago. I agree with the premise. Things are accelerating at an exponential rate and at the pace we are on it won't take long. Those graphs really give us an idea of just how fast and how soon things can change dramatically.

Like Doug said earlier in the thread, the World really has changed more in the last 50 years than it has in all the time before it. Going back to when man first learned to create fire.

[johnnyvann840]

my son is 14.
he wants to study robotics.
that sounds about right nowendays

As for AI. Hum. Ai IS what used to be called expert systems. An algorithm (or code) that can, fairly consistently, make a right guess. Over time (with recursive feedback of some type), it gets better at it. Logically, it should get VERY VERY Good at it if it is able to suck in (ever increasingly) granular enough info to continuously improve. But when does a guess become an instruction? "no, I am sorry sir, the AI is never wrong. ever". I think we can say with some certainty that there will be lots and lots and lots of things that we used to be able to game, tweak, fool, optimize, redirect, or just ignore that we will no longer able to do so. There will be no human interaction AT ALL. Hey, I can see the pros of that? But I sure as heck can see the negatives, including on the ol job front.

You just have to wonder what will happen when there is just not enough jobs for people to do and the population is so great that the World just starts running out of resources. We are RACING towards that exponentially. One thing that computers, robots, or any technology cannot and will never be able to do and that is recreate the polar ice caps, trees, fish, wildlife, potable water sources. These things are going to run out a lot sooner than people realize. It's really the elephant in the room. I mean, we are on the verge of the transportation industry completely changing. Amazon is already delivering products with drones and everything is so automated that very few people are going to be needed for manual tasks.

I think one thing that has to happen is that America needs to start NOW desalinization of sea water. As the polar ice caps continue to shrink and the levels of the oceans rise, we are going to have to start using that water up if not just to preserve our fresh water sources, but to negate it (the rising sea levels).

[johnnyvann840]

https://futurism.com/how-long-do-we-have-until-we-exhaust-all-of-our-resources/

A Resource Problem

As for the finite amount of natural resources on Earth, there are four things we must accept, and fast:

1) We cannot continue to think we have an unlimited amount of natural resources.

2) We will not be able to find a technological fix that will allow us to consume unlimited resources.

3) The term “renewable” resource does not imply that the resource is unlimited.

4) When we use a natural resource, we may turn it into something useless through entropy (for example, if we burn wood for heat, it turns to ashes, which are useless to us). The natural resources are diminishing while our population is exponentially increasing. Based on current trends, we cannot assure future generations an adequate supply of clean air, safe water, or a healthy food supply.

That said, the truth is, it is very hard to predict when we will completely run out of usable resources given the number of things that need to be taken into account — things like natural disasters, pandemics that dramatically decrease the population, technological innovations, and so on.

However, you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t want a decent estimate, so we’ll give you one. S

Some of the most recent data comes from a NASA study that was released in 2014. Sadly, it suggests that the world is heading toward an “irreversible collapse” as a result of unsustainable resource exploitation and “increasingly unequal wealth distribution.” When will the switch flip? Well, they assert that it’ll happen within a few decades.

Don’t read too much into it though, as the report also states that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” So it’s not really “an end of everything.” Just an end for us. Other life will likely arise after.

Or, we could change our ways and maybe stick around for a bit longer.

Here is a breakdown of the NASA Study that is cited... this has a lot to do with the thread title as it discusses loss of jobs and "have and have nots", unequal wealth distribution and what it might mean when an irreversible collapse comes to fruition..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

[GetBuLLish]

WaitButWhy is my favorite blog of all time. I've read his AI post multiple times and think about it constantly.

I think the world will be so unfathomably different in the next 50 to 75 years that it's nearly impossible to try and create a policy approach (e.g., UBI) right now that we can effectively apply in the future. With Artificial Super Intelligence and Brain Machine Interfaces, humans will essentially become a new species (if we make it there, of course). The jobs issue will be the least of our worries, IMO.

[dougthonus]

Well theoretically if we were able to create a legitimate AI, it wouldn't have biological restraints that humans have (speed & capacity of the nervous system, energy requirements, sleep requirements, etc. ) so it wouldn't need millions of years to evolved. Think of how many repetitions over minutes/hours/days people as children need to learn simple math concepts. Those repetitions for an AI (with enough power) would happen in unfathomable numbers in fractions of a second. Now give it hours/days/years to learn and advance

There's a pretty huge gap between "needing millions of years to develop" and "instantaneous God powered AI that can do anything" isn't there?

And the AI is bound by physical constraints in terms of how much processing power it has. The assumption that the AI can become infinitely smart and have infinite power without building infinitely better hardware doesn't follow or make sense. An improved algorithm can only do so much without improved horse power to run it.

Moore's law is falling apart, which is also one of the fundamental underpinning's of this research that it would continue for the next 50 years, but we have hit the physical limits of current processor design and are now in a stagnation period, far away from the exponential growth required to hit the processing power predicted to be necessary to reach "as smart as a human".

This isn't to say in the future (be it 1, 10, 100, or 1000 years), that we won't have this ability to create a smarter than human AI that can improve itself. I'm just saying that this smarter than human AI reaches a singularity and becomes godlike in a matter of instants because it reaches some point that it can improve itself faster and faster ad infinium is unlikely.

It assumes that an algorithm simply CAN be improved this infinite amount rather than that the algorithm may very quickly reach a point of maximum efficiency and that further improvements will only be gained by more hardware cycles which is an extremely poor assumption (one I would say borders on ridiculous).

If you took the most efficient programming deemed possible today, and tried to run it on a 20mhz computer from the 1980s, do you think you'd be able to run modern software by simply improving the algorithm? Or do you think we required the 100 fold improvement in processing power?

[coldfish]

You just have to wonder what will happen when there is just not enough jobs for people to do and the population is so great that the World just starts running out of resources. We are RACING towards that exponentially.

Lies told to you to manipulate people, 101.

Birth rate is slowing down so much across the globe that within the next 100 years, population will start contracting. Maybe 50. It just took a while for birth control to spread.

As far as resources, they are more available now than 50 years ago. We are increasing farming efficiency faster than birth rates and as a result, are actually abandoning farmland. The efficiency rate increase is actually going up.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/index.php



We actually have increased yield by 50% since 1988.

[dougthonus]

https://futurism.com/how-long-do-we-have-until-we-exhaust-all-of-our-resources/

A Resource Problem

As for the finite amount of natural resources on Earth, there are four things we must accept, and fast:

1) We cannot continue to think we have an unlimited amount of natural resources.

2) We will not be able to find a technological fix that will allow us to consume unlimited resources.

3) The term “renewable” resource does not imply that the resource is unlimited.

4) When we use a natural resource, we may turn it into something useless through entropy (for example, if we burn wood for heat, it turns to ashes, which are useless to us). The natural resources are diminishing while our population is exponentially increasing. Based on current trends, we cannot assure future generations an adequate supply of clean air, safe water, or a healthy food supply.

That said, the truth is, it is very hard to predict when we will completely run out of usable resources given the number of things that need to be taken into account — things like natural disasters, pandemics that dramatically decrease the population, technological innovations, and so on.

However, you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t want a decent estimate, so we’ll give you one. S

Some of the most recent data comes from a NASA study that was released in 2014. Sadly, it suggests that the world is heading toward an “irreversible collapse” as a result of unsustainable resource exploitation and “increasingly unequal wealth distribution.” When will the switch flip? Well, they assert that it’ll happen within a few decades.

Don’t read too much into it though, as the report also states that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” So it’s not really “an end of everything.” Just an end for us. Other life will likely arise after.

Or, we could change our ways and maybe stick around for a bit longer.

Here is a breakdown of the NASA Study that is cited... this has a lot to do with the thread title as it discusses loss of jobs and "have and have nots", unequal wealth distribution and what it might mean when an irreversible collapse comes to fruition..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

This is like a theory, based on someone's theory, based on some wildly extrapolated ideas that came from NASA.

So it's fine if you want to think about ways things could wrong. This could happen. However, the implication that science predicts this would happen or saying NASA is predicting this would happen is a misrepresentation.

Also, the base premise of us running out of renewable energy is false. There are certainly lots of type of energy where the renewal isn't an issue, it's just collection (water, wind, solar) unless you believe those natural resources will disappear (in which case we're all dead without water and the sun anyway).

I would say it's highly probable that we could generate orders of magnitude more energy than we presently use today if we were able to harness the power of ocean currents which seems like a fairly reasonable and straight forward development.

[League Circles]

You just have to wonder what will happen when there is just not enough jobs for people to do and the population is so great that the World just starts running out of resources. We are RACING towards that exponentially.

Lies told to you to manipulate people, 101.

Birth rate is slowing down so much across the globe that within the next 100 years, population will start contracting. Maybe 50. It just took a while for birth control to spread.

As far as resources, they are more available now than 50 years ago. We are increasing farming efficiency faster than birth rates and as a result, are actually abandoning farmland. The efficiency rate increase is actually going up.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/index.php



We actually have increased yield by 50% since 1988.

Not to quibble with any of your specifics, but it's important to add that resources will be a concern because despite decreasing birth rate, birth rate still far exceeds death rate (I assume to be fair). Life expectancies are increasing and plausibly may go through the roof. If my wife and I live 400 years and our one child is still alive then and has had only one child herself, who only had one child themself, who only had one child themself, etc, we'll have massively upped the population despite having a low birth rate.

Secondly, resources will be decreasing.

Not sure how scientific everyone is, but I've never had any expectations for a static equilibrium where we can project living as a species til the sun dies ever since I studied thermodynamics. Unless you make the unwarranted (but possibly true to be fair) and unverifiable (I think) assumption that the incident radiation absorbed by the earth from the universe is lower than the emitted radiation from the earth to the universe, we MUST proceed from lower entropy to higher entropy, from higher quality energy to lower, amd from lower temp/pressure to higher.

I've gotten way off your comments, but my point is that it is natural law that the earth as we know it will decay from habitable to inhabitable, even if the sun doesn't die for what we might call an indefinite time. All of what we do as a species, whether related to AI or the environment, etc, just makes the inevitable sooner or later.

[dougthonus]

I've gotten way off your comments, but my point is that it is natural law that the earth as we know it will decay from habitable to inhabitable, even if the sun doesn't die for what we might call an indefinite time. All of what we do as a species, whether related to AI or the environment, etc, just makes the inevitable sooner or later.

It seems likely that the rate at which this is happening is more or less irrelevant. We will almost certainly either escape the planet and colonize space or be the cause of our own extinction long before this happens IMO.

[League Circles]

https://futurism.com/how-long-do-we-have-until-we-exhaust-all-of-our-resources/

A Resource Problem

As for the finite amount of natural resources on Earth, there are four things we must accept, and fast:

1) We cannot continue to think we have an unlimited amount of natural resources.

2) We will not be able to find a technological fix that will allow us to consume unlimited resources.

3) The term “renewable” resource does not imply that the resource is unlimited.

4) When we use a natural resource, we may turn it into something useless through entropy (for example, if we burn wood for heat, it turns to ashes, which are useless to us). The natural resources are diminishing while our population is exponentially increasing. Based on current trends, we cannot assure future generations an adequate supply of clean air, safe water, or a healthy food supply.

That said, the truth is, it is very hard to predict when we will completely run out of usable resources given the number of things that need to be taken into account — things like natural disasters, pandemics that dramatically decrease the population, technological innovations, and so on.

However, you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t want a decent estimate, so we’ll give you one. S

Some of the most recent data comes from a NASA study that was released in 2014. Sadly, it suggests that the world is heading toward an “irreversible collapse” as a result of unsustainable resource exploitation and “increasingly unequal wealth distribution.” When will the switch flip? Well, they assert that it’ll happen within a few decades.

Don’t read too much into it though, as the report also states that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” So it’s not really “an end of everything.” Just an end for us. Other life will likely arise after.

Or, we could change our ways and maybe stick around for a bit longer.

Here is a breakdown of the NASA Study that is cited... this has a lot to do with the thread title as it discusses loss of jobs and "have and have nots", unequal wealth distribution and what it might mean when an irreversible collapse comes to fruition..

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/14/nasa-civilisation-irreversible-collapse-study-scientists

This is like a theory, based on someone's theory, based on some wildly extrapolated ideas that came from NASA.

So it's fine if you want to think about ways things could wrong. This could happen. However, the implication that science predicts this would happen or saying NASA is predicting this would happen is a misrepresentation.

Also, the base premise of us running out of renewable energy is false. There are certainly lots of type of energy where the renewal isn't an issue, it's just collection (water, wind, solar) unless you believe those natural resources will disappear (in which case we're all dead without water and the sun anyway).

I would say it's highly probable that we could generate orders of magnitude more energy than we presently use today if we were able to harness the power of ocean currents which seems like a fairly reasonable and straight forward development.

As far as I'm concerned, unless you reject the 2nd law of thermodynamics, there is categorically no such thing as renewable energy and its an impossibility that we can maintain energy equilibrium.

[League Circles]

I've gotten way off your comments, but my point is that it is natural law that the earth as we know it will decay from habitable to inhabitable, even if the sun doesn't die for what we might call an indefinite time. All of what we do as a species, whether related to AI or the environment, etc, just makes the inevitable sooner or later.

It seems likely that the rate at which this is happening is more or less irrelevant. We will almost certainly either escape the planet and colonize space or be the cause of our own extinction long before this happens IMO.

We can't escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It will bean issue wherever we go.

[johnnyvann840]

You just have to wonder what will happen when there is just not enough jobs for people to do and the population is so great that the World just starts running out of resources. We are RACING towards that exponentially.

Lies told to you to manipulate people, 101.

Birth rate is slowing down so much across the globe that within the next 100 years, population will start contracting. Maybe 50. It just took a while for birth control to spread.

As far as resources, they are more available now than 50 years ago. We are increasing farming efficiency faster than birth rates and as a result, are actually abandoning farmland. The efficiency rate increase is actually going up.

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Field_Crops/index.php



We actually have increased yield by 50% since 1988.

Yields are greater than ever, but that is not why we are abandoning farm land. The government is subsidizing farmers NOT to grow crop in many places to keep prices at a level where it at least worth growing.

[dougthonus]

We can't escape the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It will bean issue wherever we go.

If we develop technology to truly colonize space, then I think we will be able to solve this problem too. We'd have a technological base that is exponentially better than what exists today and to me it is likely that:

1: We'd find our understanding of thermodynamics doesn't hold everywhere
2: We'd find we can figure out a way to maintain equilibrium
3: We'd find a way where energy can be created out of nothing.

or worst case scenario:
4: In a trillion years (or some other ridiculously stupidly large number) we might exhaust the universe's supply of energy.