August 23, 2021
Posted by: J Greely at Mon Aug 23 18:10:28 2021 (ZlYZd)
Posted by: cxt217 at Mon Aug 23 19:55:43 2021 (MuaLM)
b) Modern AI techniques work in specific ways to get certain flavors of task done. Fundamentally, they have limits, and it is not hard to work out what a lot of them are. It seems unlikely to change the basic arithmetic of 10 or 20 years ago over what kinds of factory task make more sense for automation, and what kinds for human. The tech to replace fast food workers has been around for a while. What changed was the Democrats screwing with the labor market. Thing is, Democrats screwing around with the labor market is a temporary thing, and will be gone before we discover significantly more capable AI techniques.
c) There's an arithmetic of maintenance and design attention that prevents replacement of humans with equipment for all society sustaining tasks. Humans working on something directly are smarter than a bunch of engineers who aren't there, and who are trying to use a machine to do it. Farming in particular is a lot of varied tasks and thinking, and is one of my go to examples of where the maintenance would be prohibitive. A farmer is better doing maintenance on the heavy equipment than some robot would be. Also a good example of where modern AI would be severely problematic, and of a mental task that humans can do much better. (AI training aggregates. Humans can learn a lot about local weather, and the sorting aggregation happens by capitalism.)
d) Some engineering tasks can be automated, but engineering as a whole cannot be automated. To make robots take over all human tasks, you would need to be able to automate the engineering. Otherwise, human engineers at a distance cannot exceed humans at the spot. Same basic logic as why university lunatics with PhDs in telling 'those people' what to do, who are successfully telling 'those people' what to do would always be worse than people minding their own business.
e) There always will be more actual need for retards to do some work than there will be for so called intelligent people to spend their time in technocratic megalomania.
f) As a 'whatever discipline it is that understands this stuff', Musk may be an okay technologist. UBI is bad, because idleness means nothing to distract uninvested people from breaking stuff. You would expect more nihilistic destruction, perhaps of the sort produced by our so called elites, who we likewise have no real need for.
g) One task that we will never be able to completely automate away is fighting other humans. And I saw that as someone insanely optimistic enough to think it might be possible to develop technology sufficient to let us kill everyone in the world who isn't an American. Okay, that probably is not a good goal, but it is definitely a difficult thing to accomplish.
h) I'm pretty sure that one of the big things modern engineering is going to have to deal with is the overconfidence in AI. Lot of people are learning techniques to implement AI based automation. Not clear to me how many really understand that there are limits, or that they should be careful and cautious in what they do. This, /before/ considering the state of programming as an engineering discipline. Caveat, I'm still a pretty bad programmer.
Posted by: PatBuckman at Mon Aug 23 20:35:26 2021 (DHVaH)
As to UBI: Sounds like more "you eill own nothing and be happy" to me. We had pretty close to itopia in this country: it was everyone owning their own family farm or store. Ownership lead to dignity, lack of ownership to serfdom or slavery, everywhere i can think of.
Posted by: Madrocketsci at Mon Aug 23 21:32:39 2021 (SrNF9)
Posted by: Madrocketsci at Mon Aug 23 21:40:55 2021 (bbnoI)
Posted by: Madrocketsci at Mon Aug 23 21:47:32 2021 (SrNF9)
The fear-porn/clickbait/petulant Tory-esque overlord take: And then we'll overturn society and replace you all with robots, ROBOTS, I tell you! And then you'll be sorry, you useless eaters! You'll all be on the dole because we won't NEED you anymore! > That attitude annoys me, but it also worries me (not for the reason of the implied threat). A technological society is one that can only exist if there's extreme respect (and remuneration) for the competence and skill that goes into building and maintaining it.
This: (removed image of jewler's lathe), antiquated though it is, was not created by nor operated by mindless drudges. Nor was this: (removed image of steelworks), nor this: () The idea that the maintenance of a civilization *capable* of building rockets is mindless drudgery, and that all thinking can be centralized in some design bureau is lunacy. Even the Soviets weren't that stupid, and they *were* that stupid in heading down that road.
Posted by: MadRocketSci at Mon Aug 23 22:38:23 2021 (hRoyQ)
Posted by: Mauser at Tue Aug 24 11:52:34 2021 (Ix1l6)
Posted by: cxt217 at Tue Aug 24 19:40:01 2021 (MuaLM)
Posted by: Mauser at Wed Aug 25 20:50:00 2021 (Ix1l6)
71 queries taking 0.1174 seconds, 352 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.