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.

 

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

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: alphabetaone
Well, for the same reasons people go to the doctor sometimes. They know something is wrong, but they are not ideally suited to diagnosing nor procuring a solution. You don't NEED a solution or a critique to know something is not right.


No, but we've had decades to see that things aren't right. The time to state the obvious has passed. Most people know the economic system isn't right. And just about anyone who has looked at the world knows that more unemployment is coming. So rather than ring the alarm bell over and over again, quoting others opinions about something. Why not actually sit down and discuss the issue. How do we design a working economic system in a world of high unemployment?




I'm not sure why it is I'm going to this particular extent, but staying on message in a thread is actually pretty important to me. With that in mind, you've completely lost focus on the chronology of events as we've been talking about them.

Angeldoll posted a message: "Discussion is the first step toward making change"
You: "No, the first step is a replacement plan, whats the point in a critique without having a plan"
Me: "You don't need a plan, to know something isn't right, ergo you don't need a plan to open a discussion"
And your final follow-up

Why not actually sit down and discuss the issue.


Which brings us full circle back to the reason I responded to YOU responding to Angeldoll in the first place...she said discuss, you said why bother, I supported her hypothesis that a discussion isn't out of line, and you finalize your retort with "why not discuss" ?? I think you're just bringing confusion into this discussion.

edit on 13-2-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

No, perhaps I'm not being clear.

I don't consider a bunch of people agreeing there's a problem to be discussion.

Coming up with potential solutions is discussion. Seeing where those solutions succeed and fail is how you further frame the problem. Pointing out that things were different in the old days doesn't.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: alphabetaone

No, perhaps I'm not being clear.

I don't consider a bunch of people agreeing there's a problem to be discussion.

Coming up with potential solutions is discussion. Seeing where those solutions succeed and fail is how you further frame the problem. Pointing out that things were different in the old days doesn't.


You're right then, that was not clear, mea culpa. I don't specifically disagree with the above assertion, that constructive brainstorming in an effort toward a solution to any problem (not just what's outlined in this thread) is always a good course. However, it's been my experience over the years, in many venues, that some people like to either:

1) complain for complaints sake
2) complain to show they are aware of a problem and a need for a solution
3) complain with intent on developing a solution

In all honesty, whether you or I like any one of those 3, they all have some value if only to the person employing the strategy. For instance, an elderly person will often fall into category 1...while many poke fun at it, to them it allows them to feel more relevant in a community or to their families.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

imho, the first step is to define the problem, and agree on the problem's 'identity.' Only then can one discuss solutions. ...Too often on these boards, the "problem" is re-defined with each new post. ...Ergo, no way to move forward.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: alphabetaone

imho, the first step is to define the problem, and agree on the problem's 'identity.' Only then can one discuss solutions. ...Too often on these boards, the "problem" is re-defined with each new post. ...Ergo, no way to move forward.






Very true, we even see that happening here to a lesser extent...the "problem" was machinery replacing middle class humanity originally, now we've morphed into the "problem" and how to address it as being the problem in itself.

Though, depending on the nature of where the problem lies, multi-layered problems will self-identify as either more discussion or delving into a solution has already begun. A prime example of this is (in the spirit of this thread) application or low-level coding. Often, one problem identifies another dormant problem and sometimes into a loop of yet other problems which arise from fixing the first.

Here, it's easy, the topic is the "problem"...will middle-class labor pool be replaced by AI? The answer regretfully is likely a resounding yes. The solution? Well, considering, imho, most people want AI to replace every single one of their 'tediums' (again, imho all that represents humanity) under the auspice of the path of least resistance and human natures tendency for laziness will opt for some sort of UBI. Which wouldn't be so bad, as Marxist leaning as it is, with one exception: the constant wage divide. The purse-string pullers will ALWAYS have more than recipients of UBI and thus control the world, at which point there will be absolutely nothing humanity can do about it lest they cant feed their families if the currency overlords decide to pull the plug on whole regions.

I honestly don't know what the solution is, but what I DO see, are all the earmarks of civil unrest and potentially worse.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Nice post. Thanks. Agree with most of what you say except maybe for this bit:



...human natures tendency for laziness...



Studies show that most people truly enjoy meaningful work - when they have security, and the opportunity to pursue it, they go for it. So UBI is not the boogeyman.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: alphabetaone

Nice post. Thanks.
Anytime, my pleasure! I enjoy discussions like this





Agree with most of what you say except maybe for this bit:



...human natures tendency for laziness...



Studies show that most people truly enjoy meaningful work - when they have security, and the opportunity to pursue it, they go for it. So UBI is not the boogeyman.



Yea, ya know after I posted the message I knew I hadn't made clear the delineator between my perception of meaningful work, gainful employment, and the tendency for laziness.

In my mind, I view them all completely separately...picture this, a guy works saving dolphins from certain extinction every day of his life...then drives home and has Alexa turn on the lights for him and start his dinner. After that he drafts an email to his girlfriend and doesn't bother spelling anything properly because he knows it will be fixed for him. He is absolutely engaged in meaningful work (to him which is the most important), gainfully employed, yet taking the path of least resistance with respect to his other choices, or more succinctly, the easy way out. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, I just ascribe it to human nature to want to make everything easiest on themselves.



edit on 14-2-2017 by alphabetaone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone



But what about those who are NOT gainfully employed - and never will be because there's no niche for them in the new economy? Do you agree that they too, can create meaningful work? Albeit unpaid? ...and if they have a right to UBI, does that include the right to some basic techno-goodies? Or just survival basics (food, water, shelter)?




PS. Check out lakenheath24's new thread on UBI.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: muSSang
In the future you will see products labelled not by country but by if it was made by a human.

The middle class just have to boycott automated products, there also will be a legislation stating a minimum number of employees have to work there. There will be a market for man made products.


That will not work.

All you are doing is at best delaying the inevitable.

The transition will be really ugly, but doesn't the idea of working less, and having more free time appeal to you.

As long as humans aren't killed off because they are viewed as useless eaters, automation will be good for our species.

Our economy may just change so everyone works part time and their are more shifts at first - we just have to make sure all the gains from automation do not all flow to the wealthy.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: alphabetaone

No, perhaps I'm not being clear.

I don't consider a bunch of people agreeing there's a problem to be discussion.

Coming up with potential solutions is discussion. Seeing where those solutions succeed and fail is how you further frame the problem. Pointing out that things were different in the old days doesn't.


Here's the thing, I don't think anyone really has the answer.

There are a few countries starting to try out the universal basic income. I don't really think that will work.

The problem with UBI is as long as a large portion of the population needs to work, it will undermine productivity. It very well may be the ultimate solution once nearly all human jobs are gone, but I don't think it will work very well during the transition, due to human nature.

Really I think a lot of how the transition will go will depend on the speed of AI development. If truly powerful AI is developed it will be able to replace all human jobs extremely quickly. The potential problem being it may decide humans are useless and kill us off of course.

I do know that the next 20 years are very likely to be more eventful than the last 200 though, and that both excites and terrifies me.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo


...we just have to make sure all the gains from automation do not all flow to the wealthy.



The wealthiest persons on the planet are corporations - and all of our and our ancestors' labor over the past few hundred years have gone into building their wealth.

Ergo, it's not the working humans who ought to fund UBI but rather, the corporate persons who continue to benefit the most.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: alphabetaone



But what about those who are NOT gainfully employed - and never will be because there's no niche for them in the new economy? Do you agree that they too, can create meaningful work? Albeit unpaid? ...and if they have a right to UBI, does that include the right to some basic techno-goodies? Or just survival basics (food, water, shelter)?




PS. Check out lakenheath24's new thread on UBI.





This is tough in that there are more considerations to take into account than simply who should get what. For instance:

Does the monetary system remain in place? Or does anyone who has managed to create even a small amount of wealth for themselves now find that wealth either useless or part of a systemic UBI pool?

Is there any further true need for education? If so, where is it applicable? Only to the formerly wealthy? And, speaking of which, has their wealth now nosedived? If not, you've now set up a series of global thieves. If so, what resources are generating a UBI pool? In fact, if an individual has exactly the same as their neighbor and neither of them have monetary purchasing power, then what is even the need FOR a UBI pool? At this point simply give away everything for free.

How could UBI be sustainable when there is no purchasing power? The wealthy / formerly wealthy will eventually run out of resources (money) unless they manufacture from thin air a currency, however what is their motivation for that when historically currency is the trade for something. Unless of course, we're assuming that simply being a productive member of society (or at the very least not a menace to society) is the "work" performed to ensure the motivation of UBI continuum.


You see, the variables are so deep I could go on for thousands of pages with my little question/assumption scenario which makes answering your question far too complex to answer with any level of sincerity....


Maybe the only real answer is in the melding of man and machine....don't deprecate man, enhance it.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

I think there's only two categories. 1 and 2 are the same thing. The way I see it, you can either complain and accept it and just use your complaints as something to talk about, or you can complain with the intent of developing a solution.

I'm not under any delusion that anyone here is going to get something implemented in the near future if they actually do come up with a good solution. But if people develop ideas in smaller venues, someone is eventually going to express it in a larger one. It's also a good way in general to look at problems. I'm pretty sure answers do exist, if you look back a post or two I expressed two possible solutions. Neither is perfect, but they're atleast attempts at fixing something.

I'm probably just being overly harsh towards you... I've seen a lot of discussions here lately in the forums I enjoy that are basically just complaining for the sake of complaining when to me the idea of forums is to speak to somewhat like minded people about concepts and solutions not just the status quo and bleak predictions for the future.


originally posted by: alphabetaone
Here, it's easy, the topic is the "problem"...will middle-class labor pool be replaced by AI? The answer regretfully is likely a resounding yes. The solution? Well, considering, imho, most people want AI to replace every single one of their 'tediums' (again, imho all that represents humanity) under the auspice of the path of least resistance and human natures tendency for laziness will opt for some sort of UBI. Which wouldn't be so bad, as Marxist leaning as it is, with one exception: the constant wage divide. The purse-string pullers will ALWAYS have more than recipients of UBI and thus control the world, at which point there will be absolutely nothing humanity can do about it lest they cant feed their families if the currency overlords decide to pull the plug on whole regions.


This problem is less about a UBI which I think is relatively easy to implement and more about wage gaps. Wage gaps are tougher to deal with unless you limit the system to a finite amount of currency. The more currency you have in the system, the larger the potential gap grows. The main way societies have taxed in the past was to use progressive systems that taxed people more if they made a higher wage. I think there's a lot of merit to that idea, but that it's implemented poorly.

Instead, I would argue that rather than create tax brackets with top marginal rates we instead tax people relative to their share of the pie. If someone owns 1% of the wealth in the country in the year 2017, then they pay 1% of the total taxes needed for 2017. In short, we flip the process around. Rather than design brackets, project income, and set a budget relative to that income, we look at GDP, figure out what percent of it should be government spending, and set that aside for our budget. From there it's simply your earnings/nation earnings*budget. That's the amount you pay for that year. No brackets, no deductions, no complicated formulas, no deficits.

If people think they're being taxed too high, then change the budget. If there's arguments that people can afford to be taxed more, then raise the budget. Getting back to the problem of wage gaps, this is a self regulating cycle. When the top 1% (or any other arbitrary percent you like) start making disproportionately more money, their revenues will increase, increasing their share of national earnings, which in turn triggers more taxes and makes them pay more. Simultaneously it lowers the burden on people making less thereby raising their incomes and maintaining balance.


originally posted by: alphabetaone
Does the monetary system remain in place? Or does anyone who has managed to create even a small amount of wealth for themselves now find that wealth either useless or part of a systemic UBI pool?

Is there any further true need for education? If so, where is it applicable? Only to the formerly wealthy? And, speaking of which, has their wealth now nosedived? If not, you've now set up a series of global thieves. If so, what resources are generating a UBI pool? In fact, if an individual has exactly the same as their neighbor and neither of them have monetary purchasing power, then what is even the need FOR a UBI pool? At this point simply give away everything for free.

How could UBI be sustainable when there is no purchasing power? The wealthy / formerly wealthy will eventually run out of resources (money) unless they manufacture from thin air a currency, however what is their motivation for that when historically currency is the trade for something. Unless of course, we're assuming that simply being a productive member of society (or at the very least not a menace to society) is the "work" performed to ensure the motivation of UBI continuum.


You see, the variables are so deep I could go on for thousands of pages with my little question/assumption scenario which makes answering your question far too complex to answer with any level of sincerity....


I answered all of these.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Not all directly answered (such as education), but the economic questions are covered for two possible systems. There's holes in each system such as quality of life issues in the first and individuals making poor personal business decisions in the second. But I think they're starting points.

To address the issue of education. I imagine what you'll see as automation takes over, is that education drifts more towards fulfilling less necessary roles and more intellectual/cultural ones. It reminds me of the John Adam's quote:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

It's taken longer than the 1 generation suggested in the quote, but most of society has moved beyond politics and war and is currently in that second phase. As we master those, it frees people up to study things that are fulfilling on a level of more than just a paycheck.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: tikbalang

Plese, give some links to the real sources.



posted on Feb, 14 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Thanks. Yes, the variables are real - but you missed my post to proxima just above your response to me:

The wealthiest persons on the planet are corporations - and all of our and our ancestors' labor over the past few hundred years have gone into building their wealth.

Ergo, it's not the working humans who ought to fund UBI but rather, the corporate persons who continue to benefit the most.

...This perspective should cover many of your concerns.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow

Thanks. Yes, the variables are real - but you missed my post to proxima just above your response to me:

The wealthiest persons on the planet are corporations - and all of our and our ancestors' labor over the past few hundred years have gone into building their wealth.

Ergo, it's not the working humans who ought to fund UBI but rather, the corporate persons who continue to benefit the most.

...This perspective should cover many of your concerns.





No, I didn't miss it to be honest, I saw it. Mine are not concerns but simply examples of why I couldn't answer your question with any level of intellectual integrity.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

My deepest apologies to you and others. I am not giving this conversation the time and attention it deserves - just dropping in, sometimes reading, sometimes scanning, then zooming off again. Hope to have more time soon.




posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: alphabetaone

My deepest apologies to you and others. I am not giving this conversation the time and attention it deserves - just dropping in, sometimes reading, sometimes scanning, then zooming off again. Hope to have more time soon.





Don't be silly...there's no need to apologize. We're all just discussing and throwing around what's in our .s...

Have a goodnight



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Inevitably, any serious discussion about 'jobs disappearing due to automation' must look at UBI. But. The unfortunate reality is that many people believe their jobs can be "brought back." They do not realize that most manufacturing jobs have been lost forever. That more and more jobs are being automated every day.

So as much as anything, this thread is about disappearing jobs - the ones that are already lost, and the ones soon to be gone. And yes, what that means to ordinary people. But the focus here is more about sounding the warning, and framing the extent of the problem in ways ordinary people can understand.

lakenheath24 started a great thread, Is a Universal Basic Income(UBI) coming?



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
More...


Elon Musk: Self-Driving Car Revolution Will Leave 15% of World Population Without Jobs

The future of the driverless car is much closer than people realize, Elon Musk reportedly said in a speech in Dubai Monday. That’s the good news. The bad news, he points out, is that there will be a steep price to pay for the “great convenience.”

‘There are many people whose jobs are to drive. In fact, I think it might be the single largest employer of people. So we need to figure out new roles for what do those people do, but it will be very disruptive and very quick.’





top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join