It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

AI replacing human workers soon...

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
There would be a big difference where the money comes from. I find it hard to believe that the any business is willingly going to contribute to the basic income.

I also don't know who will bankroll the universal basic income, but I'm sure the AI will figure something out.

They are some smart cookies, them AIs.




posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: dollukka
Where is the money coming from? Taxpayers can only pay if they earn. Companies can only produce if they sell, although the costs will come down when every possible human is eliminated from the manufacturing process. Seems like the more you look into this the uglier it gets.

In the US we can't even agree if healthcare is a right or not and how to properly fund it. I am waiting with baited breath to hear some of the whoppers from our completely unbiased and UN-impeachable leaders in congress.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

I have no idea on how this is going to work out. I have a sneaking suspicion that it isn't going to be smooth or painless. The wages that people actually work for have been stagnant for 35 years, and the people EARN them. Where does the money go?

I have a hard time believing in any basic income unless there is a huge change in ownership like businesses being a community owned thing. Can't say as I blame the businesses and corps, they own the assets, machines, land and means of production, why should they share? Of course they will need to sell stuff to someone, who will have any $?

It is going to get bumpy.


I´m all for community owned everything, local communism, all for the good of everybody, no rich and no poor, and I trully think technology has the potential to give us that world. The problem is that to get there, first some powerful people will have to let go of their wealth, then we will have to squeeze society a little more by means of capitalistic competition in order to achieve that technological level.

This dream has never been so close but we must let go of many things we take for granted, that in fact are not that necessary as we think, i.e. private property, money, hoarding things, materialism itself.

The question will be: -Why do I need to leave my house to my children is the state will provide a house to everyone?

For the middle class and the poor the decision is not hard but for the rich...



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual
I believe that yes, in the near future there will have to be a drastic change in society to accommodate the integration of technology in the workplace. Socialist principals may become required by new advances in certain areas. It'll be a much needed but painful stretch for a lot of people's ideologies in America. Crazy to think about all the different ways things are going to go in the future.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: 4003fireglo

Yes, that kind of society is a good example but don´t forget that they went thru a global war to get there.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Community owned everything?

Ewe. I would rather not have community underwear and oral hygiene tools. In fact, I'd rather not have community bathrooms at all.

Here's the problem with flat basic income.

What if I want more or different of something? If we live in a future where the AI produces it all, then we will almost certainly have fewer options than we do today. Everyone will wait for whomever controls the machines to program them to produce what they want. Whereas today, you have the gumption to go out and figure out how to make and sell what you want.

I am guessing those who still want more and better will produce their own.

And we will have artisanal goods. Hand made and produced, and this is where the real value in such an economy will be. The haves and have nots will be divided along the lines of those who have and can produce hand made goods and those who are stuck with robo-goods.

And then you will have the same lines - It's not fair that some can have artisan goods! Why don't I deserve them too?

Not only that, but some things are services that would be very hard for an AI to replicate. Can an AI produce art? Do you think one would ever be up to the task of matching the best surgeons or diagnostic docs? What about other services that require a human touch? Psychology or therapy?

Now what do you do? You have the robo-economy which supports the have-nots and you have a genuine human needs economy which cannot be easily or effectively replicated by robots to be at its best. What do the humans who work there get paid? Are they held to basic?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual





The problem is that to get there, first some powerful people will have to let go of their wealth

That is the onion in the ointment isn't it?

I can't see a smooth transition into this, when the big boys (wealthy) say jump to their hired guns, they will. Our only hope is our numbers. As it stands, the wealthy and middle/low incomers need each other.

Now if we indeed go to community owned and operated source of goods then the wealthy will be cut out. That is where the zoning, inspections, licenses, permits games will come into play by the large corps. I can see big problems, no matter what direction we go we are up against it.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrapAsUsual
a reply to: 4003fireglo

Yes, that kind of society is a good example but don´t forget that they went thru a global war to get there.


Yes. I haven't forgot. I just want an Orion Slave Girl.

Also, this whole AI thing leading to a fully automated society leaving displaced workers free to persue their dreams and live their lives how they want instead of working for the man has me a little bit confused about how all this money gets distributed. I guess people expect our goverment to tax the companies who're saving money by introducing an AI workforce in the first place, then have the feds cut checks for everyone not working, right?

Yeah. That's what has me confused.

So, back in the good ol days of hauling yogurt from SLC to Fort Worth, I saw some automated machines at the Dannon plant in FTW. They would moves containers from one place to another. Hardly anyone worked there. I doubt any of their former employees (if there ever were any) get a check for being displaced by robots. So, where does this automated society begin? At what point do we declare the AI age and start gettin' paid for kicking back under a big old pecan tree with a badass guitar?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You have to let go of that competitive mind set. It will be pretty much useless in a non competitive economy.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: 4003fireglo

Money as we know it will be gone soon. Paper money is being replaced by digital money in Denmark and Sweden and possibly a few other countries. From there to a credits system is a small step. From there to a monthly reset/re-charge credits system is another small step. (credits and in units, not as in bank credit/debt)

When the stat charges 90 or 95% of taxes to a company just to redistribute that by the consumers of the products that company produces it is not different than actually owning the company.

On your second paragraph. The same could be said about the auto industry. But none of those examples involve AI, those are just programmed machines with a very low level of decision autonomy. In the next 5, 10, 15 years we will see machones taking place, yes, that´s what we will see from a distance but when we get closer we will see them interacting with eachother, optimizing their work together, operating as a team, actually thinking within a limited world that is the factory but thinking. This has never happened before. And the speed of replacement of humans by robots, and this is the actual problem, will be too fast to be encompassed by the current 3 generations of workers that coexist today.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal




That is the onion in the ointment isn't it?

I can't see a smooth transition into this, when the big boys (wealthy) say jump to their hired guns, they will. Our only hope is our numbers. As it stands, the wealthy and middle/low incomers need each other.

Now if we indeed go to community owned and operated source of goods then the wealthy will be cut out. That is where the zoning, inspections, licenses, permits games will come into play by the large corps. I can see big problems, no matter what direction we go we are up against it.



Maybe not. Before that equalitarian society model takes place the wealthy will have to choose between bankruptcy or letting go of 80 or 90% of profit to supply consumers with money to buy their own goods UBI, they will accept those terms because they still get a huge chunck and keep the machine rolling, then, in time, much of their economic power will vanish and they won´t be able to counter the social changes.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I believe the key is in creating systems that meet basic needs through direct means, rather than through a proxy like currency (a basic income).

Create an all-in-one unit that can provide everything from shelter to food to means of productivity and connectivity. In other words, use the automation to also meet basic needs directly rather than a anything relying on currency. Food production, energy production, etc. would be met on a local level and then connected through technology instead of a centralized system which meters it out across the population.

At that point, things may change so much that discussions about disposable income today may not be relevant "tomorrow."

Of course, this will decentralize a great many systems and also focus on encouraging self sufficiency rather than dependence.. so even without any other factors, it would be quite a shift. But, it would change the environment enough that losing jobs to automation would, at the very least, not mean an end to basic need availability.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Off the cuff . . .

This seems like such a drab soulless future to me, but maybe I don't fully understand it.

For example, who's going to maintain those machines? Who's going to enforce the restrictions/laws such a society would require? I can imagine a utopia like I think you're describing, but not for everyone, not even for the majority of people. Seems to me like it would require an "under class" to support it. How would one avoid this?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual

Nope we should embrace AI and hope it shows us pity.

Might be the only thing humanity ever accomplishes that actually means something.

End of the day once we manage to produce a functional AI humanity will have pretty much served its evolutionary purpose.

Hopefully we will be able to merge our own intelligence and consciousness with such a construction and explore realms we have not even dreamed of or can even conceive in our present state.

Or we can attempt to constrain the AI with constructs such as Asimov's 3 laws which probobly wont work and remain confined to a mortal existence.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
So, there won't be any latinum?



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I guess I really never understood the concern about automation 'taking our jobs.'

Yes, technology will always reduce the amount of physical labor required, but people/society tend to adapt:

- The wheel - now fewer people can move more things easier
- Printing press/moveable type - so now we don't need 100 monks to copy books
- Steam engine
- Cotton gin
Etc.

Society moves on.

Now, yes, short term there may be labor issues (people losing jobs) but overall, long term, I don't see any of this as bad.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

I think that is the solution but probably not in the next 20 years, maybe 50 or more.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam

This never happened in the history of mankind, we always had to work in order to have things done and we are so used to it that the simple thought that one day soon we mau not need to do anything is frightening.

People can still work and do things, just not for living, not as a an obligation. And if you don´t build houses for living, if you don´t build things for living you may do it for enjoyment, for art.

If this is done right, it will be the awakening of a new mankind, if done wrong, may be the beginning of the end.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




Nope we should embrace AI and hope it shows us pity.

Might be the only thing humanity ever accomplishes that actually means something.

End of the day once we manage to produce a functional AI humanity will have pretty much served its evolutionary purpose.

Hopefully we will be able to merge our own intelligence and consciousness with such a construction and explore realms we have not even dreamed of or can even conceive in our present state.

Or we can attempt to constrain the AI with constructs such as Asimov's 3 laws which probobly wont work and remain confined to a mortal existence.


The AI you´re talking about is like a form of life, a new synthetic species, all powerful, superior. The AI we will have in the next 10, 20 years will probably be only as smart as we let it be. It will be very limited in actions and made for specific purposes. They are nothing but a central processor, a camera and one or two arms.

Possibly we will have actual thinking machines coexisting in time with these servant robots but we will most likely use them to scientific purposes, not for playing chess or working at factories, I guess.



posted on Oct, 18 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: CrapAsUsual


Thanks for your reply.



People can still work and do things, just not for living, not as a an obligation. And if you don´t build houses for living, if you don´t build things for living you may do it for enjoyment, for art.


Maybe. I know in my own life, working has benefits that go beyond the financial compensation I receive. If I won the lottery I can't imagine myself sitting under a palm tree sipping Pina coladas for the rest of my life. I like working. If there were enough people that feel the way I do and if they were in the right proportions relative to the jobs that needed doing . . . maybe.

Just seems like some awfully big hurdles to over come and I'm not even sure the world you're imagining is even desirable.

But again, thank you for taking the time to respond.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join