Is Marshall Brains “Manna” arriving?
How close are we to Marshall Brain’s “Manna” story in which he predicts robots will take human jobs and devastate the economy?
Related Stories
Connect With Us
Subscribe by Email
.
Post a Comment
Get Our Newsletter
Debate Stats
Total Comments: (18)
Date Started: June 7, 2011 - 6:22 am
Popular On The Hub
Singularity
Martin Ford Asks: Will Automation Lead to Economic Collapse?
Written by: Aaron Saenz 716 days ago
Will the future be filled with cool technologies and endless opportunities or will our own creations lead to eventual doom? [...]
Robots
5 Axis Robot Carves Metal Like Butter (Video)
Written by: Aaron Saenz 605 days ago
Industrial robots are getting precise enough that they’re less like dumb machines and more like automated sculptors producing artwork. Case [...]
Genetics
Designer Babies – Like It Or Not, Here They Come
Written by: Keith Kleiner 1009 days ago
Long before Watson and Crick famously uncovered the structure of DNA in 1953, people envisioned with both horror and hope [...]
Stem Cells, Gadgets, Robots, Longevity, Health, Artificial Intelligence, Genetics, Body Implants, Cyborgs, Science, Technology, Singularity, The Future!
Comments
I think automation and development of Advanced (general) AI will take away jobs in the short term. But humans always adapt (we dont have much of a choice).
The complexity of jobs that AI & robots can perform efficiently is gradually increasing. Until recently, only the corporations, big universities & other well funded institutions can afford them. However, in a few years the paradigm will shift dramatically. Just as computers became available to everybody (atleast to most in the civilized world)
we saw a positive influence of a new disruptive technology. Remember computers did steal lot jobs when they first arrived. I think AI & robots are an extension of this revolution. So once this new tech becomes available to common people there is a hope for new paradigms in terms of economy, technology etc. Imagine what a individual can do with full access to a peta-flop computer and intelligent robots. In essence everyone can run their own business with negligible investments.
Its no where near as extreme as in Mana but I’m an electrician/electronics tech and we recently got gps trackers on our work vans. Now it feels like the manager is sitting on my shoulder at all times. No more sneaking breaks at Barnes and Noble or going home early. As manna describes, we are much more productive and the day does go by quick but its horrible. The system automatically shoots an email to corporate if we speed ten miles over the limit or if we keep the van idling for more than 15 minutes. It also logs engine starts and stops. Many companies are going this way.
I think this article says it all very well. We are doomed:
http://www.hpcwire.com/hpcwire/2011-08-25/the_rise_of_the_thinking_machine.html
I sure hope we are close. In a post scarcity world like the one AI might bring about there may be no need for the word economy. Once the production costs of nearly every product is virtually immaterial wouldn’t we be able to get rid of this money thing we are all so obsessed with. Just think what a mind like Warren Buffet might have accomplished if not fully preoccupied with the acquisition of wealth.
Introduction of agricultural machinery deprived 80% of society (farmers) of they work.
Is there anyone who calls it “devastation of economy”?
Taken alone, I would call 80% job loss devastating to economy. It is certainly devastating to a certain aspect of our modern economy, namely, the working class.
I’m pretty unknowledgable about economics, so please excuse my ignorance, but doesn’t that increase production in an economy? So would you call increasing the productive power of an economy destructive?
I think you have to consider more factors then only job loss. It is a negative effect, and is destructive, I agree with you. BUt it also has positive effects.
Incredibly positive are the potentials, especially if we rewrite the economic system to reduce or even eliminate the negative effects. I.E. Something similar to the Australia project.
Like I said though, I’m ignorant of economic theory, so if I’m mistaken I would like it pointed out, because I am very interested in this subject.
Economically speaking, replacing human labor with machines is _the_main_ factor of economic growth. Wherever some human is replaced with a machine, he is free to start doing something new, which he could not do when he was busy in his old work.
The only problem is that “starting something new” usually means “learning something new”. And people are very reluctant in this matter. It is much easier to go to the strike and protest than to go to the school and learn.
This is neverending story. When power loom was invented, there were weaver’s riots. When mechanical spinning was introduced, angry spinsters destroyed its inventor workshop. It is likely that such protests will continue in the future. And it is likely that in the end they will have no effect and we all gain from improved technology.
My wife and I were laid off within a week of each other and we’d like nothing better than to learn some new skills however, our unemployment stipulates that we need to be available for full-time work. Unemployment does offer “some” retraining although the most tech advance training they offer is word processing.
I can see in some instances people can’t accept that their way of life has be irrevocably changed however, many people would love the opportunity to learn something new. We need the mechanisms to be in place to facilitate that desire.
Me personally, I went back to school knowing that if unemployment finds out about it I could be cut off and bills/rent don’t pay themselves.
i.e. don’t generalize.
Right, many of the manual labor workers will not proceed to middle class jobs or anything like that.
The main difference is that if scarcity is no longer existent, unemployment will be irrelevant to the economy, because it is irrelevant to survival.
In order to prevent protests and riots they will have to decrease the requirements for welfare. Because of automation welfare will be easier to provide.
Also, I believe it will actually be easier for people to be educated, and free, because of the direction it is taking online. A lot of teachers will be put out of work, and would do better as educational researchers. In fact, I think there will be alot of opportunity in that field.
In fact the only opportunities to make your fortune will probably exist in creative development, social jobs, etc. Anything that a machine cant do for a while yet.
It is possible however, that you will make money merely by existing, selling your personal information, subjecting yourself to surveys, research, experimentation.
One shouldn’t also forget that as soon as new technologies emerge, a new and more convenient interface emerges as well. Just as you access now any online search engine or mobile network, you will no doubt have access to AI as well in the future. If you post your queries to AI using the most up-to-date interface and get answers in a moment, you would be clever enough mentally not to lag behind any machines.
Yes, that is an extremely important factor.
I predict that we will be come inseperable from our ai. In fact, I think a personalized AI will not only be vital in education, but in all aspects of life. It will be aware of your strengths, weaknesses, preferences, what attracts you and why, and will probably feed you information relevant to your goals in life.
It may be that the calculative part of the mind will fade entirely, and only the creative part will be useful.
As far as robots replacing humans go, that is obvious. It is also obvious that if the current system does not change, people will necessarily require welfare. It will also be cheaper for welfare to be provided, and the conditions required to qualify for welfare will be less strict, since otherwise you will have riots, even though robots could probably quell any public resistance. I do not think all rich people are bad, selfish maybe, but many will be willing to provide aid if mass poverty does occur.
But my main concern is that the rich people will still hog the majority of everything for themselves. They do so now, so why not later. I don’t think the economy will fail, it will be improved dramatically. It will be bad for the poor, but the upper echelons will thrive on the perfect lower class, an automated one. A possible trend is that only the wealthy will be able to participate. In fact it would seem likely to me that even those who are considered to be rich now, will probably lose their fortunes and end up on welfare themselves.
But I do not believe that it will happen this way, even though greed knows no bounds. I think that the most intelligent people in our nation are the most aware of this, and are at the same time aware of the greater advantages of equal distribution in an automated society, (namely rapid innovation, imagine if everyone was fully educated,) and are capable of discovering how to implement it.
Maybe we simply have to prove to the corporate powers that it is in their interest to change the way of things, and then they will submit to the tide, rather then fight against it. Personally I believe it is, it is certainly a speedier way to achieve singularity, which is certainly best for all.
On another note, doesn’t it seem to be a global pattern that individual life merges to create more complicated organisms? In this context it seems highly likely that not even corporations have the power to prevent this natural course from succeeding.
Imagine if they built a super computer to calculate what was in their best interest, and it told them to give everything to the poor? LMAO
If we as a society prepare for the integration of robotics, I think we can avert any economic impacts that robotics may incur. As we inch towards a Singularity, it’d be responsible for governments to adopt socialist aspects of government.
Capitalism in an automated environment will ultimately fail because of the loss of jobs. With robotics assuming the jobs of labor or physical services and AI assuming the “thinking” positions, there doesn’t leave much but supervisory and managerial positions for the ever growing population. Hence the socialism. One would immediately scream communist! But that’s certainly not the case. As we evolve, so should our governing processes.
Corporations would not survive a full implementation of robotics and AI no matter what dramatic decrease in costs, as those left unemployed (vast majority) would not be continuing the economic cycle therefore the economy would collapse. This all equals capitalistic failure.
What do you do with an unemployed population in an automated society? Does product and service value decrease as automation implements? What will the state of energy dependence be at this point in time? What will the state of diplomatic relations be?
You couldn’t depend on capitalism and a free market to sustain itself in the future we foresee as being automated. Partial automated workforce might work for awhile, but ultimately things would become a welfare state in dire need for socialistic regulation. Hell, even the current state of economics needs a revamp in the US which I couldn’t even dare to begin on.
In order for an automated society to work economically, there needs to be change globally or at least an agreement between the economic superpowers on a diplomatic level. If there isn’t a specific level of synergy and understanding between the people and their governments as well as government to government, we will see economic failure.
rmerz01, saying that robots will destroy economy would be the same as saying that a combine harvester has ruined farming. Now you don’t have to plant, harvest and process your grain in a windmill as earlier where lots of people worked for. Is it bad? No. It made bread much more affordable. What about other industries? It’s the same. It pays everywhere to use more powerfull in order to be more productive. Based on it, we can make a conclusion that robots will be just another more powerfull tool to make you more productive. The more productive you are, the more of products you produce cheaper.
The price of products in the future will mainly consit of generating ideas and raw material if no human resources are used. If raw material is cheap and the ideas to produced are outdated, it will cost almost nothing. However, newly generated products may cost you alot as it takes efforts to design them.
Now it’s the time for the most interesting issue. What would do the others who do not want to run business employing machinery? There will be 2 types of goods: human made goods and robot made goods. So you can make a necklace of sea shells and sell it to somebody who appreaciates human made goods. As manual work will be very expensive in comparison of automated one, you may afford yourself living for quite a while on the paid amount if you buy robot made goods only. There will be more of actors, entertainers, social workers, administrators etc. It will offer 2 choices: you want that human touch – you pay a lot, if you are satified with robot made products, you can get for free (limited number) or almost for free
I get what you’re saying. You’re right in that regards. I guess what I meant was in the long run. Sure, human-made products or services would become a luxury in a sense, but at the same time all of the people who are in the market challenging a more than likely cheaper (and in some cases higher quality) robotic competitor would saturate the market, causing business failure. And what you say about all of the human-required jobs, that would be saturated as well not to mention your severely limiting the job choices for those who need employment. What about those who worked factories they’re whole life? Are they supposed to become actors and social workers? A factory job probably requires a minimum of 2 weeks training for an entry level position as opposed to a social worker that requires a college degree. Are they going to change fields 10 years from retirement to a profession they may or may not hate. Eventually the jobs that can be done by robots or AI, will be done by AI, just because it will eventually be cheaper. There are those that simply cannot conform to a mentally demanding job and resign to physical labor. Are they to struggle in the human-made market, that which seems as volatile as any luxury market today? The problem with a struggling economy is across the board luxury business do badly. I’m quite certain there will be advancements well beyond my comprehension at that point, but I’m just adding in my personal experience along with trends I recognize in present day corporate behavior. Along with your human-made post-scarcity concept will eventually be superabundance, but those are 2 concepts among several others that will majorly impact our economic state. We must also take third world economics into account. If we’re importing goods from China because the labor is cheaper, imagine the impact robotics will have in that respect. That’s even fewer jobs. The production facilities and all that is associated in the construction and regulation of that facility will not contribute the economic status. And as for newly generated products with design costs. If AI is at an advanced enough stage, it could do the R&D, design, and testing in a fraction of the time it would take teams of engineers to do. Sure it would deduct from overall costs, but it’d be another thing a corporation would be willing to invest in and another thing humans would not be required for. By the time robotics and AI would be implemented into the workforce, population would have significantly increased. I do dare say that without superabundance, the economy WILL see a negative impact due to the implementation of robotics and AI.
Yes, of course it might have certain negative aspects to economy and not everyone might adapt to changing enviroment. It’s always like that. If you can’t use a computer, you can hardly expect to work as an administrator/manager these days. A few decades ago however nobody cared about it. Some people might find it too hard to adapt it now. Do we have to stop using computers in order to enable everyone to work as an administrator? Besides, what do we do now in our lives when we do not have to spend the whole day for hunting and making tools from stone?
What is the primary purpose of a robut? It’s just being a tool. So no matter how clever or hard working robots are, they still would be no more than assistants which get their mental and physical work organised by people.
If the economy would be completelly based on AI and robots and you are absolutelly ignorant of what happens around you, you would still get enough of free charge food, clothes and maybe a place to live because of low production cost.
Yes, everything leans on superabundance, and global warming….
http://econfuture.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/could-fast-food-automation-replace-low-wage-workers/