![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » June 4th, 2017, 11:54 pm wrote:Financial Industry???
Where is all that money they'll invest, insure, move around faster and faster supposed to come from?
Who will be hiring all the caring, serving and artsy people?
Okay, AI is just tools. Wholly owned and controlled by us.
When he says "we" and "us", I'm pretty sure he doesn't mean you and me - he means Microsoft, Amazon and Google.
Without a major political reorganization:
1. Everything in the world will be owned by two dozen people (we're already down to 82, is it?) -- who already have all the healers, carers, groomers, cooks, servers, entertainers, decorators and ass-kissers they can ever possibly need. Why would they pay any more people to do things for one another?
Since those few super-rich, their engineers and their retinues are the only people with disposable income, they are the tax-base for the redistribution of helicopter money, as well as the payroll of government officials. They get to make the regulations and the allocations.
Even if only half the population is unemployed, who will pay the insurance premiums to maintain all those AI doctors and human nurses and wonderful computerized medical devices?
On these issues, present-day America (government of/by/for the rich) is showing the opposite trend: withdrawing funds from public communication, health care, transport and education.
Who organizes and co-ordinates the interfaces and platforms for automated transport, hospitals, etc? On what kind of long-term plan?
- I don't see how it can be done ad hoc, on the present infrastructure.
The whole projection depends on uninterrupted energy supplies, undisrupted communication network.
- Given the volatility of international relations and climatic events, how likely is that?
I imagine Philosophy will have the same effect than it's always had in the past: after some brilliant person publishes some brilliant book
- 2-10 years on, academics will debate, argue and write essays about its implications;
- 20-25 years later, university students will organize clubs based on its contested aims
- 50-100 years later rabble in the street will riot over its misunderstood contents
- 200 years later, governments will claim to be fully in accord with its principles, while doing the opposite
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Mossling » June 6th, 2017, 1:11 am wrote:There will still be capitalism, of course, but the UBI will keep people afloat.
[Who will be hiring all the caring, serving and artsy people?]
Companies or public sector offices.
..and the government elected by "us".
You could say that the UBI is major political reorganization,
and the same administrators/visionaries behind UBI could also provide other socialist agendas. It seems such socialism is unavoidable.
Tax is tax - it's not bribery.
Renewable energy - China, for example, as well as apparently leading in AI research and development, are heavily investing in green renewable energy tech.
Lol, no, the Romans and Stoicism, the Chinese and Confucianism, and there are still appetites for those respective philosophical outlooks and associated social visions in the modern world. The Stoics championed Socrates as their fundamental inspiration.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » June 6th, 2017, 4:07 pm wrote:There is no 'of course' about the continuation of capitalism. Where is all the money to support capitalism supposedly coming from? The money-shuffling 'industry' produces nothing. Unemployed people produce nothing. Executives produce nothing. Service sectors produce nothing. Entertainment industries produce nothing. Robots produce something, but that something is for sale at a profit. Profit isn't self-generating; it has to come from somewhere.
Capitalism is based on growth. Money is invested to grow real wealth which is then turned into more money.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Growth and loss; wax and wane. Capitalism can just be considered competing in a market and gaining capital to invest. It doesn't have to involve permanent growth.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » June 7th, 2017, 1:19 am wrote:You are describing the outer aspect of something undefined, whose functional mechanism is not understood.
What 'market'? Who is competing with whom? What does 'investment' mean?
And you're still not answering the basic questions:
How is wealth created in the first place? Where is the wealth coming from?
Not why and who, but where and how.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » June 7th, 2017, 2:20 pm wrote:What you have there is a metaphor - a rather strained one - rather than an accurate representation of how a complex mechanism operates.
But, never mind - as long as it seems obvious and simple, I'm sure it'll be fine.
The result of keeping the plant in Indiana open is a $16 million investment to drive down the cost of production, so as to reduce the cost gap with operating in Mexico.
What does that mean? Automation. What does that mean? Fewer jobs, Hayes acknowledged.
From the transcript (emphasis added):
GREG HAYES: Right. Well, and again, if you think about what we talked about last week, we're going to make a $16 million investment in that factory in Indianapolis to automate to drive the cost down so that we can continue to be competitive. Now is it as cheap as moving to Mexico with lower cost of labor? No. But we will make that plant competitive just because we'll make the capital investments there.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » June 7th, 2017, 5:41 am wrote:And you envision a peaceful transformation to Futurama?
Okay, but that's not what I'm seeing in the world-as-it-is.
I have no quibble with the technological aspect of the thing - that's been foreseeable for a century or more. It's the political theory that doesn't fit. There is also a problem of sheer size, scope and numbers: all the elements that would need to be co-ordinated.
I fear you and I are not discussing the same subject matter - and nobody else is interested.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Mossling » June 7th, 2017, 6:25 pm wrote:I do understand your sentiment, Serpent - the Trumpist attacks on globalism, for example - as if it is treasonous to outsource to cheaper manufacturing options, is a strange one.
A kind of new age Amish vision?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Mossling » Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:25 pm wrote:I do understand your sentiment, Serpent - the Trumpist attacks on globalism, for example - as if it is treasonous to outsource to cheaper manufacturing options, is a strange one. It seems to point to any import of a cheaper good to be anti-American - it seems to demand the halting of all imports, just in case they upset some native company that is struggling to compete while manufacturing a similar product. And the visceral responses to the situation from the Trumpist makes one wonder what will happen when they realise that their 'protected' jobs are not even in existence anymore because robots have replaced them. Will they be anti-robot? For there is apparently little appetite for logical clear thinking on all of this. There is a pseudo-Christian white nationalism agenda, that's for sure, and it has a whiff of ultra conservatism that wants to take the US backwards. A kind of new age Amish vision?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Mossling » June 8th, 2017, 12:36 am wrote:The new age Amish suggestion was a kind of joke, but some people here really think it's a viable option?
Keep the robots out of the factories and hospitals? Keep society at a certain technological level that allows for Americans to work - just so that the puritans don't get anxious about whether they are going to heaven or not?
And then what happens when the Iranian iron guard flying assault robots arrive in these communities?
Hmm, I don't think the US is going to just let the rest of the world 'tech up' and surpass them in economy
and thus military spending and R&D so easily....
And regarding blowing one another up - it seems that the 'valid reasons' are getting less and less abundant.
The internet is uniting communities and philosophies all across the globe - psychology is psychology no matter the geographical location of the human nervous system. Socrates communicated that the absolute truth is that the conceptual truth is relative, in agreement with the Buddha, Confucius, and LaoTzu. So that's the West, India, and China in philosophical agreement. That's a humanist starting point that, coupled with scientific Enlightenment values, introduces a standardized globalist culture that transcends localized religions, race, political ideology, and so on. The Golden Rule, for example, is already being used by international ethicists to prevent wars.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Serpent » June 8th, 2017, 10:37 pm wrote:Pass da cheeroot, mon - I ghot to get me some o dat optimism!
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
In the past 12 months, Japan has started to produce a lot of robots. Its production index for industrial robots stood at 25 in 2009, achieved 175 last year and rocketed to 225 in June this year. Three-quarters of the units made were exported, helping Japan boost its total exports by 11% in the past year. In turn, the industrial surge of robots has stimulated a surge in semiconductor production in Japan and South Korea. This is big and real.
Japan is ahead in robotics not only because it has a decades-old semiconductor industry and an ageing population, but because it has an industrial strategy. Its government demanded a new industrial revolution in 2014. In 2015, its Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry issued a “New Robot Strategy”, stipulating sales targets for robotics in various sectors and urgent measures to train and retain technologists.
In robots for nursing care, for example, the strategy spells out a detailed five-year plan – from supporting manufacturers and changing International Organization for Standardization regulations to new health regulations and the creation of a marketplace between healthcare providers and robotics firms. The policy was not made in a vacuum. Japan’s industrial strategists were worried about big US spending commitments on robot research and development and a €2.8bn (£2.5bn) robotics project, funded by the European commission, called Sparc.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » June 7th, 2017, 9:27 pm wrote:I don't think its that far fetched. It was the outsourcing of these jobs that has eroded the American middle class. The import of cheaper goods only makes long term economic sense if you can educate your workforce to then produce exports that recoup the money sent overseas. Now I believe you are correct - if by some miracle Trump stops the imports and the jobs come back to the US - they will be going into the hands of the robots.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Sivad » July 24th, 2017, 7:23 am wrote: a good chunk of those jobs would be automated but there would still be millions of high paying jobs that would be viable for decades.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Sivad » Sun Jul 23, 2017 10:23 pm wrote:SciameriKen » June 7th, 2017, 9:27 pm wrote:I don't think its that far fetched. It was the outsourcing of these jobs that has eroded the American middle class. The import of cheaper goods only makes long term economic sense if you can educate your workforce to then produce exports that recoup the money sent overseas. Now I believe you are correct - if by some miracle Trump stops the imports and the jobs come back to the US - they will be going into the hands of the robots.
I doubt that, it's mostly just propaganda by neoliberal con artists trying to convince people their screw job is irrevocable. If that miracle occurred a good chunk of those jobs would be automated but there would still be millions of high paying jobs that would be viable for decades.
If Manufacturing Employment is Dead Then Take a Look at China’s Zombie Apocalypse
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » June 7th, 2017, 9:27 pm wrote:Thank you for your opinion - but your article has nothing to do with the upcoming shift to robotic/artificial intelligence workforce
This argument ends up as a morality tale with serious policy implications: if even China, manufacturing powerhouse with wages developed countries cannot hope to compete with, is losing manufacturing jobs, then surely manufacturing jobs are obsolete and the U.S. is foolish to try to maintain them—let alone get them back.
Unfortunately, this story is based on a gross misreading of inaccurate evidence.
In my opinion, we aren't going to wake up one day and then bam robots took all of our jobs. Its going to be an industry here - and industry there - meanwhile wages depress as humans clamor for any remaining jobs - and it will be this way for decades upon decades to come. Why do you think such a future is not possible? That there will always be some magical human only industry that opens up? That Robotics/AI is not really that great even though we already had a user tell us he came in and automated a slew of worker's jobs away? That revolts and social choas will destroy electric infrastructures thereby eliminating robots and giving us "off the grid" economies and jobs back? Well maybe that last one...
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Mossling » June 4th, 2017, 4:36 am wrote:This is a new thread split off from the thread: Robots/China taking US jobs" = Biggest Issue of Our Times?
This video below has blown me away - one sentence remains poignant: "not every factory worker can be reskilled to become a sushi chef"... :/ , but he says that there are probably realistic potential solutions to the 50 percent AI-fuelled job replacement he predicts - and in 10-15 years no less!
He is a true expert in the field of AI development and application and predicts all kinds of incredible developments that sound logical enough. He has a considerable resume - working with the likes of Google, Microsoft, Apple, and so on.
At 49:00 he gives his opinion on the AI 'self-consciousness' question - that there is no engineering basis for that - that AI is just a tool, and that the talk of hypothetical self-conscious robots is just that - purely hypothetical and nowhere near realistic yet.
He lists, among other things, the following AI-related world-changing developments:
- Service 'heartful' jobs irreplaceable
- Automated transport (of course)
- No personal vehicles (because they are unused most of the time and therefore inefficient)
- Emptier roads
- Everything one needs delivered by courier
- No, or very small, hospital queues due to AI doctors
- Almost instant beaurocracy served over e-channels
In this way our societies will be remodelled in very significant ways.
Some of the dangers he highlights are as follows:
- Angry jobless protesters on the streets
- Neglect of the jobless
- Hacking
- Misuse of private data (photos, medical records, and so on)
- Non-benevolent programming
And some others.
What, do you think, the socio-political and economic global repercussions are going to be of all this?
I personally think that practical philosophy is going to be a key area of study once again - permeating all fields and activities. Epicureanism, Skepticism, Cynicism, etc.; all will become practically relevant to every person's life once more as they look for purpose beyond the traditional idea of work. Do you agree?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen » July 23rd, 2017, 9:35 pm wrote:
Thank you for your opinion - but your article has nothing to do with the upcoming shift to robotic/artificial intelligence workforce - it discusses changes in China's manufacturing base mostly between 2005-2013 -- the impacts of AI aren't really felt yet. In my opinion, we aren't going to wake up one day and then bam robots took all of our jobs. Its going to be an industry here - and industry there - meanwhile wages depress as humans clamor for any remaining jobs - and it will be this way for decades upon decades to come. Why do you think such a future is not possible? That there will always be some magical human only industry that opens up? That Robotics/AI is not really that great even though we already had a user tell us he came in and automated a slew of worker's jobs away? That revolts and social choas will destroy electric infrastructures thereby eliminating robots and giving us "off the grid" economies and jobs back? Well maybe that last one...
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Sivad » Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:09 am wrote:SciameriKen » June 7th, 2017, 9:27 pm wrote:Thank you for your opinion - but your article has nothing to do with the upcoming shift to robotic/artificial intelligence workforce
You're missing the point. The article has everything to do with the myth of technological unemployment in the manufacturing sector -This argument ends up as a morality tale with serious policy implications: if even China, manufacturing powerhouse with wages developed countries cannot hope to compete with, is losing manufacturing jobs, then surely manufacturing jobs are obsolete and the U.S. is foolish to try to maintain them—let alone get them back.
Unfortunately, this story is based on a gross misreading of inaccurate evidence.
The point is manufacturing jobs are not yet obsolete and won't be for decades. The jobs are there by the millions, they could come back, and the claim that robots could do most of them is bogus.In my opinion, we aren't going to wake up one day and then bam robots took all of our jobs. Its going to be an industry here - and industry there - meanwhile wages depress as humans clamor for any remaining jobs - and it will be this way for decades upon decades to come. Why do you think such a future is not possible? That there will always be some magical human only industry that opens up? That Robotics/AI is not really that great even though we already had a user tell us he came in and automated a slew of worker's jobs away? That revolts and social choas will destroy electric infrastructures thereby eliminating robots and giving us "off the grid" economies and jobs back? Well maybe that last one...
All I'm saying is we aren't there yet and that right now and probably for the next 20 years at least most of the manufacturing jobs lost to outsourcing can't be cost-effectively automated.
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests