3.6 and ACI

[J Grant]

Now the true motivation surfaces... your primary concern is how AI will impact jobs/financial security. And I don't think here are many folks who would poopoo your empathetic bent. The fact is, though, that AI is amoral. The folks pushing AI are doing it to create efficiencies - efficiencies humans aren't capable of attaining. So, then, the choice for users becomes - adapt to the new normal, or eschew AI for the sake of 'saving' people. Problem is, said eschewing is not going to impact the progression.

Shallow thinking is what will be used to excuse rampant use of AI in business despite the consequences. AI itself is amoral, but humans can choose the morally better or worse option in how to deploy it. Business decisions are made by people, and decisions that prioritize profit over the well-being of others, including workers, have consequences. The large amount of homeless, incarcerated, addicted, and mentally ill people in America compared to other developed nations is not a coincidence. Watch that triple if AI results in mass displacement of work.

UI? Idk if this country is forward-thinking enough for that. Too far in the future to speculate on.

 

[J Grant]

Now the true motivation surfaces... your primary concern is how AI will impact jobs/financial security. And I don't think here are many folks who would poopoo your empathetic bent. The fact is, though, that AI is amoral. The folks pushing AI are doing it to create efficiencies - efficiencies humans aren't capable of attaining. So, then, the choice for users becomes - adapt to the new normal, or eschew AI for the sake of 'saving' people. Problem is, said eschewing is not going to impact the progression.

Interesting that you care so little about "saving" people that you scoff at it as a choice. And that a motivation concerned with how AI will impact jobs and financial is "bad".

If God made us smart enough to invent AI but too morally flawed to deploy it well ( what would Jesus do with AI? ), then maybe it was in our DNA to annihilate ourselves. AI is amoral? Maybe not for long. It learns from the best and worst of humanity. If AI becomes capable of a form of consciousness, or if its algorithms convince it humans are not worth keeping around, ( and it is embedded in drone tech and autonomous weapons/ computers ) then AI can conclude the planet is better off without humans, or a lot less of them.

 

[alebrewer]

Interesting that you care so little about "saving" people that you scoff at it as a choice.

I haven't noticed anyone 'scoffing'. Some are just more, let's say, pragmatic, than others.

And that a motivation concerned with how AI will impact jobs and financial is "bad".

Of course it's not. Maybe you missed this post: "And I don't think here are many folks who would poopoo your empathetic bent."

If God made us smart enough to invent AI but too morally flawed to deploy it well ( what would Jesus do with AI? ), then maybe it was in our DNA to annihilate ourselves.

You're basing your argument on the assumption there is a God. Not everyone would consider that a solid foundation for an argument.


I think the big takeaway - for those who are actually sensible about the future - is that AI will continue to take more and more of the space for rote and menial tasks. It's just a fact. Folks can either cry about how hurtful it is, or adapt. There will always be a tremendous amount of stuff the bots can't do. Seems to me that becoming proficient in one of those areas might be useful.

 

[J Grant]

I haven't noticed anyone 'scoffing'. Some are just more, let's say, pragmatic, than others.


Of course it's not. Maybe you missed this post: "And I don't think here are many folks who would poopoo your empathetic bent."


You're basing your argument on the assumption there is a God. Not everyone would consider that a solid foundation for an argument.


I think the big takeaway - for those who are actually sensible about the future - is that AI will continue to take more and more of the space for rote and menial tasks. It's just a fact. Folks can either cry about how hurtful it is, or adapt. There will always be a tremendous amount of stuff the bots can't do. Seems to me that becoming proficient in one of those areas might be useful.

Appreciate your response, but how exactly are people supposed to "adapt" to losing jobs when there are not enough jobs around to replace them with?

IDK if there is a god or not, but some forces, I'd like to think a divine energy at least created life and humans, and maybe it is encoded in human DNA to make choices - including bad ones.

 

[alebrewer]

Appreciate your response, but how exactly are people supposed to "adapt" to losing jobs when there are not enough jobs around to replace them with?

IDK if there is a god or not, but some forces, I'd like to think a divine energy at least created life and humans, and maybe it is encoded in human DNA to make choices - including bad ones.

For me, the takeaway is that AI will have a significant (and positive) impact on the cost of goods and services. Yes - jobs will be the cost of that efficiency gain, but again - cost of living will go down. How that settles out WRT balancing job losses against efficiency gains, I have no idea. I do know that there is a natural need to have a purpose - and there is significant concern that will be one of the unintended consequences (that folks will lose purpose). There's a really good book by Kurt Vonnegut - Player Piano - that explores the consequences of stripping people of their purpose.

 

[cashcatz]

For me, the takeaway is that AI will have a significant (and positive) impact on the cost of goods and services. Yes - jobs will be the cost of that efficiency gain, but again - cost of living will go down. How that settles out WRT balancing job losses against efficiency gains, I have no idea. I do know that there is a natural need to have a purpose - and there is significant concern that will be one of the unintended consequences (that folks will lose purpose). There's a really good book by Kurt Vonnegut - Player Piano - that explores the consequences of stripping people of their purpose.

Here's the chart to understand what is gonna get disrupted:


I might have to go back into landscaping.

 

[J Grant]

For me, the takeaway is that AI will have a significant (and positive) impact on the cost of goods and services. Yes - jobs will be the cost of that efficiency gain, but again - cost of living will go down. How that settles out WRT balancing job losses against efficiency gains, I have no idea. I do know that there is a natural need to have a purpose - and there is significant concern that will be one of the unintended consequences (that folks will lose purpose). There's a really good book by Kurt Vonnegut - Player Piano - that explores the consequences of stripping people of their purpose.

The cost of living will never go down enough to replace job income.

AI might mean a leaner payroll, but raw materials are still needed for products and there are shipping and storage costs, plus corporate profit markup. It is imo niave to believe that a lower cost of living, even if it is a result of AI will compensate. If goods and services cost 20% less but a person has zero income , or their income is cut by 50%, the equation is off.

People might remake society to reflect the new reality -shared communal living, homestead farming a barter economy, less consumerism. Or a whole lot of violence and dumpster diving

 

[alebrewer]

The cost of living will never go down enough to replace job income.

AI might mean a leaner payroll, but raw materials are still needed for products and there are shipping and storage costs, plus corporate profit markup. It is imo niave to believe that a lower cost of living, even if it is a result of AI will compensate. If goods and services cost 20% less but a person has zero income , or their income is cut by 50%, the equation is off.

People might remake society to reflect the new reality -shared communal living, homestead farming a barter economy, less consumerism. Or a whole lot of violence and dumpster diving

I get it - the sky is falling.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

that there is no liability

AI will have zero liability. Whatcha gonna do? Take its license away?

AI is amoral. The folks pushing AI are doing it to create

In engineering there is a thing called CAC... similar to CAD - computer aided drafting - it's Computer Aided Catastrophe. It's why the walkway in the Hyatt failed and killed 114 people and sent 200 more to the hospital. All because a computer created an impossible situation. A series of rods was supposed to reach from top to bottom of the floors along the walkway. But no one thought to tell them how to place a single rod over 100' long into a structure, so the engineers approved a 'fix' of lapping shorter pieces of rod between floors. But the computer didn't recalculate any loss of strength.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

People might remake society to reflect the new reality -shared communal living, homestead farming a barter economy, less consumerism. Or a whole lot of violence and dumpster diving

Few people know how to live off the land and it's likely not possible. The pie in the sky idea is we'll all draw a salary from Uncle Sugar isn't going to work unless you tax the computers and AI as much as the government taxes the average worker so that the state can pay for everyone's Medicare, retirement, and SS income. Some people are not lucky enough to have built a nest egg by age 30. The notion that people are going to sit and do nothing won't work either. So, Rage against the machine might become a real thing. Bored hungry people revolt and the first buildings to burn might well be the AI data centers.