Disruptive Change - Humans Need Not Apply.

a reply to: AMPTAH

So, everyone will get a "basic income allowance", granted from birth to death. This income will be calculated to meet the needs of food, clothes, and housing, for each individual. With this money, the individual will be able to choose what foods, clothes, etc.. he wants to buy. ...

So, there will be a "floor" for everybody. That financial floor will enable all to live well enough to not have to work. Those desiring more will have to be creative, or get that type of education that helps with the robot industry.

I'm not so sure about that. Our world's financial leaders are NOT on board with the idea of a Universal Basic Income.

Everybody will be required to enroll in continuing education. Those with the highest and most degrees will be elevated on a point system that will enable them to be selected for ruling committees, and policy making boards of various kinds.

The smartest people will be the rulers, instead of the weirdest psychopaths of today.

Depends how you define 'smartest' - so not so sure about this one either. Copied the following to send to a friend, but didn't file the source. Think it was the WEF but not sure. Sorry.

On average, by 2020, more than a third of the desired core skill sets of most occupations will be comprised of skills that are not yet considered crucial to the job today, according to our respondents. Overall, social skills— such as persuasion, emotional intelligence and teaching others—will be in higher demand across industries than narrow technical skills, such as programming or equipment operation and control. In essence, technical skills will need to be supplemented with strong social and collaboration skills.

We know our world's financial leaders do NOT want any kind of Universal Basic Income. So consider this:

1. As is, AI is positioned to totally reconfigure our world.

Most people in the AI community subscribe to the view that it does not really matter if machines are exactly replicating what human beings can do, as long as we do things that are intelligent and of value. For example, we have software that can fly an aircraft—very differently from how a human being would do it but it is doing it nevertheless.

2. As loam warned, the real problem is AI making decisions for humans. Who cares what level of AI that might be, AGI or not? For example:

….the Samsung SGR-A1 sentry gun installed on the South Korean border. The SGR-A1 is capable of asking humans for a password and shooting them with either lethal or non-lethal rounds if it doesn’t hear the correct answer.

In the next paragraph the report says that while this demonstrates a certain amount of “autonomy,” it’s not autonomy as it maps to the human experience (the “freedom of will or action”), but the “prosaic ability” to act in accordance with a pre-defined set of complex rules. To a person standing in front a machine gun that will kill them if it can’t understand what they’re saying, the difference seems trivial. The important thing is not the exact definition of autonomy, but the fact that responsibility has been transferred from human to machine.

3. In our world, the bulk of humanity is seen as consumers and support staff. Shortly, neither function will be required. As the Georgia Guidestones advised, the economy (and humanity) can function quite well with a total human population of 500 million. ...So what's the plan for the other 7 billion people?

Explaining AI to the public itself is a challenge.

...the fear that certain types of jobs will vanish because AI (software bots and machines) will do it more efficiently is genuine. Policy makers should prepare themselves for this, and proactively retrain and reskill the people who will be affected to help them cope better with the situation.

...Maybe 500 million can find jobs after retraining and reskilling - but again, what about the other 7 billion?


A job for specialized AI? ...We already know GAI is not required for this level of function.

originally posted by: soficrow
We know our world's financial leaders do NOT want any kind of Universal Basic Income.

Why not?

Like I said above, my take is that generations that worked for a living are the ones set to raise the protest more than the world's financial leaders. If "they" can buy up the raw materials, own the processing plants and distribution channels and some form of "money" is kept in place there is no reason why they would not want a universal basic income.

A universal basic income would be equal to giving a slave food and sleeping quarters. No where near what that person is worth. Once the need for labor is reduced, a humans worth begins to be based on his value as a consumer, within this pyramid scheme. You pointed out that this has already started.

As always, those opposing change will be dragged into the future no matter how much they kick and scream.

a reply to: zardust

The answer is that you don't do away with money and only the basics are "taken care of". People who want more will have to earn it.

honestly i think we are heading towards automation regardless of who is president, the future of mankind is artificial intelligence running everything for us and humanity focusing on creative ventures, pastimes and relationships.

humans are born lazy and our creativity exists to facilitate new means to make life easier for us.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: soficrow
We know our world's financial leaders do NOT want any kind of Universal Basic Income.

Why not?

Like I said above, my take is that generations that worked for a living are the ones set to raise the protest more than the world's financial leaders. If "they" can buy up the raw materials, own the processing plants and distribution channels and some form of "money" is kept in place there is no reason why they would not want a universal basic income.

A universal basic income would be equal to giving a slave food and sleeping quarters. No where near what that person is worth. Once the need for labor is reduced, a humans worth begins to be based on his value as a consumer, within this pyramid scheme. You pointed out that this has already started.

As always, those opposing change will be dragged into the future no matter how much they kick and scream.

Perhaps you misunderstand me? I am not saying I oppose the concept of a UBI (or BIG if you prefer). This thread is about addressing the fact that our planet is in the middle of a world-altering transition, the breadth and speed of which has never been seen before. And that we all are going to wake up to overwhelming changes in about 3 years.

The reality is that those who hold the economic power in our world through corporations do not support the UBI/BIG idea. Even the agreement at Davos put the responsibility for funding such a program onto individuals:

……Richard Baldwin, a professor of international economics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva… said in an interview …“there may just be a need to man up. We have to pay for the social cohesion that we need to keep our societies advancing, and accept that this may be a higher tax burden on people.”

Got that? A greater tax burden on people - not corporations. Which, not incidentally, removes developing nations from the equation. I happen to agree with Standing, as do you apparently:

...the way in which we understand the funding of universal basic income needs to be reframed. It isn’t taxpayers’ money, but fossil fuel subsidies and rentier capitalism that should fund UBI. At the moment revenues from IP and property are only going to a tiny minority.

The question is, How do we get there from here?


Finally, I think this is important:

…..Studies of motivation reveal that rewarding activities with money is a good motivator for mechanistic work but a poor motivator for creative work. Combine that with the fact that creative work is to be what’s left after most mechanistic work is handed off to machines, and we’re looking at a future where increasingly the work that’s left for humans is not best motivated extrinsically with money, but intrinsically out of the pursuit of more important goals. It’s the difference between doing meaningless work for money, and using money to do meaningful work.

originally posted by: soficrow
Perhaps you misunderstand me? I am not saying I oppose the concept of a UBI (or BIG if you prefer).

I don't think that at all. I understand that you are saying that TPTB are opposed to it. That is the specific claim made in the post I replied to.

The reality is that those who hold the economic power in our world through corporations do not support the UBI/BIG idea.

I don't think that is true. One professor's opinion on society in general, not even this change in particular, is not something that I would consider definitive.

The question is, How do we get there from here?

The need will bring about the required change.

…..Studies of motivation reveal that rewarding activities with money is a good motivator for mechanistic work but a poor motivator for creative work. Combine that with the fact that creative work is to be what’s left after most mechanistic work is handed off to machines, and we’re looking at a future where increasingly the work that’s left for humans is not best motivated extrinsically with money, but intrinsically out of the pursuit of more important goals. It’s the difference between doing meaningless work for money, and using money to do meaningful work.

That is why we currently have fake mechanistic work. The pencil pusher creates nothing and still gets credits (aka money) so that they can interact in a society in which they apparently provide nothing useful. Still, from among this group there are those who call others leeches.

Sorry that my posts seem to be hit and run but I have pencil pushing to do.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: soficrow
Perhaps you misunderstand me? I am not saying I oppose the concept of a UBI (or BIG if you prefer).

I don't think that at all. I understand that you are saying that TPTB are opposed to it. That is the specific claim made in the post I replied to.

The reality is that those who hold the economic power in our world through corporations do not support the UBI/BIG idea.

I don't think that is true. One professor's opinion on society in general, not even this change in particular, is not something that I would consider definitive.

lol. I quoted one professor - I too have time constraints. Fact is, those who hold the economic power in our world through corporations do not support the UBI/BIG idea.

The question is, How do we get there from here?

The need will bring about the required change.

Ya think? Don't forget, everything looks like a nail to a hammer. ...Most likely, there'll be a call to cull the useless eaters, not support them.

originally posted by: soficrow
lol. I quoted one professor - I too have time constraints. Fact is, those who hold the economic power in our world through corporations do not support the UBI/BIG idea.

You keep saying it but there is nothing to back that up.

Ya think? Don't forget, everything looks like a nail to a hammer. ...Most likely, there'll be a call to cull the useless eaters, not support them.

There, again, is that idea that they are useless and someone is actually supporting them. Unless someone just enjoys killing, why would they cull the human race?

If wealth and power are only a numbers game, a ponzi scheme then the bottom is needed. The key is not to do away with some form of reward/credits system. Then "I" can have more than others. In other words continue to be wealthy.

a reply to: daskakik

You keep saying it but there is nothing to back it up.

Please provide a list of the corporations -banks, Big Pharma, whatever- that have promised to give money to support a Universal Basic Income.

originally posted by: Puppylove
I've been arguing this forever. No one listens.

I have been saying it for years too... "Just as soon as they can replace us all with robots - they will." And it looks now like that time has come. Welcome to the Dystopia.

a reply to: soficrow

Of course there is no list of promises from corporations. It is barely even becoming a topic of interest in a few countries.

My take on this is that there are three probably scenarios.

1. A handful of families kill all the other humans and are cared for by their AI servants, like gods.

2. They provide Basic Universal Care, keep on social engineering and feel like they are doing something good for humanity.

3. Keep things the way they are and end up with a revolution on their hands.

To me the most probable is number 2.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: soficrow

Of course there is no list of promises from corporations. It is barely even becoming a topic of interest in a few countries.

Wrong. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a hot topic in the World Economic Forum, at Davos, in the World Bank, UN and numerous other organizations - several countries are testing it, and some even have put it up for a referendum already. Unfortunately, no one is looking seriously at restructuring the system and as a result, all the evaluations are based on personal income tax subsidizing the UBI.

….the renewed interest in UBI has prompted some governments to refer the issue to a referendum, as Switzerland did on 5 June this year. Close to 80 per cent of voters opposed the plan. Opponents of UBI in the country warned that given Switzerland’s high living standard, millions of people would try to move into the country. …

The Important Part Of India's Economic Survey - Universal Basic Income

...The Economic Survey, authored by Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian and his team, also strongly advocated the roll-out of a universal basic income (UBI) scheme for the poor in India, an ambitious plan involving direct money transfers to families’ bank accounts.

My take on this is that there are three probably scenarios.

1. A handful of families kill all the other humans and are cared for by their AI servants, like gods.

Surely you've heard of benign neglect !?

If you describe someone's approach to a problem as one of benign neglect, you disapprove of the fact that they are doing nothing and hoping that the problem will solve itself.

2. They provide Basic Universal Care, keep on social engineering and feel like they are doing something good for humanity.

Corporations don't feel. Corporate employees do not have the power to override the corporate bureaucracy. In fact, the only way to survive as an employee in a corporate bureaucracy is to behave (and think) like a sociopath/psychopath.

The corporate goal is to maximize profits. The bulk of humanity does not contribute to the bottom line, and many sub-populations interfere with the objective. There is no corporate reason to provide Universal Basic Care, and many not to do so.

Ain't gonna happen.

3. Keep things the way they are and end up with a revolution on their hands.

They will continue manipulating people to blame each other, not the system and corporations. Distract, deflect, yada yada

To me the most probable is number 2.

Based on what evidence?

originally posted by: soficrow
Wrong. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a hot topic

And big foot is big here but to the general public it is the fringe.

Surely you've heard of benign neglect !?

That wasn't an example of benign neglect.

Corporations don't feel.

The people behind the corporations do.

They will continue manipulating people to blame each other, not the system and corporations. Distract, deflect, yada yada

You seem to go from corps to some vague "them" depending on the argument.

Either way, a revolution is a revolution and they also affect corporations. The only way to avoid one is to keep people minimally cared for.

Based on what evidence?

Social progress in the last couple hundred years. Governance has become a balancing act. Max profits for a few while keeping the majority from revolting.

originally posted by: daskakik

RE: Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a hot topic in the World Economic Forum, at Davos, in the World Bank, UN and numerous other organizations - several countries are testing it, and some even have put it up for a referendum already. Unfortunately, no one is looking seriously at restructuring the system and as a result, all the evaluations are based on personal income tax subsidizing the UBI.

….the renewed interest in UBI has prompted some governments to refer the issue to a referendum, as Switzerland did on 5 June this year. Close to 80 per cent of voters opposed the plan. Opponents of UBI in the country warned that given Switzerland’s high living standard, millions of people would try to move into the country. …

The Important Part Of India's Economic Survey - Universal Basic Income

...The Economic Survey, authored by Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian and his team, also strongly advocated the roll-out of a universal basic income (UBI) scheme for the poor in India, an ambitious plan involving direct money transfers to families’ bank accounts.

You say:

And big foot is big here but to the general public it is the fringe.

RE: Surely you've heard of benign neglect !? Obviously referring to inaction on Universal Basic Income.

That wasn't an example of benign neglect.

Um. Okay. You clearly do not understand the concepts of benign neglect, or of action.



RE: Corporations don't feel. ...In fact, the only way to survive as an employee in a corporate bureaucracy is to behave (and think) like a sociopath/psychopath. Your response:

The people behind the corporations do (feel).

Erm. No they don't. They learn compartmentalize and not to feel.


RE: They (the corporations) will continue manipulating people to blame each other, not the system and corporations. Distract, deflect, yada yada

Either way, a revolution is a revolution and they also affect corporations. The only way to avoid one is to keep people minimally cared for.

The strategy is to get the redundant 'useless eaters' to kill each other off - and bypass the need to provide for them.

Social progress in the last couple hundred years. Governance has become a balancing act. Max profits for a few while keeping the majority from revolting.

Social progress as evidenced by the rise of terrorism, starving nations, and the civil and human rights that disappear before they can be enforced? ...Governance always was a balancing act. However, the majority already has financed the automated world order with their blood, sweat and tears. It's done. Now, the majority are redundant. There is no reason to keep them/us around.

originally posted by: soficrow
RE: Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a hot topic in the World Economic Forum,

OK

Um. Okay. You clearly do not understand the concepts of benign neglect or of action.

You might want to take another look at what I put under No. 1. There is nothing benign or negligent about the elite killing every other human being on the planet. The resistance to all of these would be revolution. Nothing about them is doing nothing and hoping that the problem will solve itself.

Erm. No they don't. They compartmentalize and learn not to feel.

That is you assuming things.

The strategy is to get people to kill each other off and bypass the need to provide for the redundant 'useless eaters.'

Why? If feeding them doesn't cost anything anymore then who cares?

Social progress as evidenced by the rise of terrorism, starving nations, and the civil and human rights that disappear before they can be enforced? Governance always was a balancing act. The majority already has financed the automated world order with their blood, sweat and tears. It's done. Now, the majority are redundant. There is no reason to keep them/us around.

There is also no real need to murder them. 1st world countries have shown that given the right circumstances populations will go into negative growth. Like I said, social engineering can get this done without mass killings. It just takes time but if the elites positions are not really threatened then what is the rush?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: soficrow
RE: Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a hot topic in the World Economic Forum,

OK

Um. Okay. You clearly do not understand the concepts of benign neglect or of action.

You might want to take another look at what I put under No. 1. There is nothing benign or negligent about the elite killing every other human being on the planet. The resistance to all of these would be revolution. Nothing about them is doing nothing and hoping that the problem will solve itself.

Ah, yes, sorry. I meant the elite do not actually have to go out and kill people - just let them die of starvation, dehydration, hydrothermia etc. - which would be benign neglect (leaving the problem to solve itself).


RE: Corporate employees compartmentalize and learn not to feel.

That is you assuming things.

Not at all. I've worked in management and directorships in corporate bureaucracies and know numerous other people who have too. ...Some walk in sociopathic, others become so if they don't get out. It's the only way to survive. Doesn't apply to lower level employees of course, but those jobs are the first to go.


RE: The strategy is to get people to kill each other off and bypass the need to provide for the redundant 'useless eaters.'

Why? If feeding them doesn't cost anything anymore then who cares?

Are you assuming the world's resources are infinite? ...Do you not know that 80% of the world's population is already starving and living in rather dire straits? Because their local resources have been stolen?

There is also no real need to murder them. 1st world countries have shown that given the right circumstances populations will go into negative growth. Like I said, social engineering can get this done without mass killings. It just takes time but if the elites positions are not really threatened then what is the rush?

Precisely. Benign neglect. And good phrase that: negative growth. Just let them die of starvation, dehydration, hydrothermia etc.

originally posted by: soficrow
Ah, yes, sorry. I meant the elite do not actually have to go out and kill people - just let them die of starvation, dehydration, hydrothermia etc. - which would be benign neglect (leaving the problem to solve itself).

But people won't just accept that. They'll fight.

Not at all. I've worked in management and directorships in corporate bureaucracies and know numerous other people who have too. ...Some walk in sociopathic, others become so if they don't get out. It's the only way to survive. Doesn't apply to lower level employees of course, but those jobs are the first to go.

Fair enough but even a corporation has to do certain things to survive.

Are you assuming the world's resources are infinite? ...Do you not know that 80% of the world's population is already starving and living in rather dire straits? Because their local resources have been stolen?

They don't need to be infinite. There just have to be enough until enough people are convinced that having kids is not that desirable.

Precisely. Benign neglect. And good phrase that: negative growth. Just let them die of starvation, dehydration, hydrothermia etc.

No, just let them die of old age, after the majority thought it better to stay single and/or without kids.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: soficrow
Ah, yes, sorry. I meant the elite do not actually have to go out and kill people - just let them die of starvation, dehydration, hydrothermia etc. - which would be benign neglect (leaving the problem to solve itself).

But people won't just accept that. They'll fight.

Yes. The plan is for them to fight each other - just like what's happening now.
Phase 1.

Fair enough but even a corporation has to do certain things to survive.

Corporations are not people - they corrupt people.

They don't need to be infinite. There just have to be enough until enough people are convinced that having kids is not that desirable.

And meanwhile?

No, just let them die of old age, after the majority thought it better to stay single and/or without kids.

And meanwhile?

originally posted by: soficrow
Yes. The plan is for them to fight each other - just like what's happening now.
Phase 1.

That has happened throughout history. Can't really say that it is evidence of some new plan put into place.

Corporations are not people - they corrupt people.

Irrelevant. If a corporation wants to continue to exist it must have certain needs met.

And meanwhile?

Meanwhile what? I know you said scarcity is real but is it? All humans alive today can fit in the state of Texas. Giving each person around 100m2 of land. Texas is big but it is still a small part of the planet.

And meanwhile?

Things go on like they always have.

The topic is robotics taking the place of humans in the workplace. You are taking a leap from "workers no longer needed to feed everyone" to "they must be killed" without giving a reason why, other than the Georgia Guidestones, which don't mean anything other than some things to think about.

If 99.9% of humanity is eating instant noodles and drinking fruit flavored drink while the 0.1% still have their lobster and champagne then why would they care if robots take their place on the factory floors and the workers now receive coupons to buy what the robots are processing for free. You have not given one concrete reason why they should even bother with getting rid of them other than the buzz-term "useless eaters". That looses it's meaning in a world where there is enough vat grown burgers for everybody.