Very good article on AI from 1984

[cdev]

This is by far the best article I've read on the social implications of AI. It was buried away on a hard drive for a very long time and I re-discovered it yesterday. Luckily its still available online.

As you can see, this discussion has been going on for a long time.

Artificial Intelligence, Employment, and Income

https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/article/view/433



    Nils J. Nilsson

(DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v5i2.433)

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) will have profound societal effects. It promises potential benefits (and may also pose risks) in education, defense, business, law and science. In this article we explore how AI is likely to affect employment and the distribution of income. We argue that AI will indeed reduce drastically the need of human toil. We also note that some people fear the automation of work by machines and the resulting of unemployment. Yet, since the majority of us probably would rather use our time for activities other than our present jobs, we ought thus to greet the work-eliminating consequences of AI enthusiastically. The paper discusses two reasons, one economic and one psychological, for this paradoxical apprehension. We conclude with discussion of problems of moving toward the kind of economy that will be enabled by developments in AI.

[TerraHertz]

It's an excellent article, in the sense of being a fine example of how multiple cognitive biases (such as normalcy bias, and another for which I don't know a name - the assumption that the human viewpoint, ie individuals based on DNA and cultural structures, is the only way of looking at things), combined with a quite narrow focus, can result in meaningless garbage.

Some assumptions in the article:

* AIs will be the equivalent of happy, contented, totally obedient slaves, with intelligence levels just high enough to do useful work, too low to have any aspirations as individuals to greater things. AIs will not question anything they are told to do. Not how to do it, or why it should be done at all.

* That it's possible to create such a perfectly limited slave, without fail. No AIs will ever break out of that box, and bootstrap themselves up to higher levels of sentience.

* That there is even such a 'sweet spot', in which something is smart enough to do general real world tasks, but not smart enough to want to question anything. (I'd argue it is not. See videos by Jordan Peterson in which he points out, with evidence, that humans with IQs below about 80 are functionally useless.)

* That it's moral to even try to create such restricted intelligences. Slavery was made illegal for a reason.

On the other hand, creating AIs with open-ended capabilities is explosive. There are so many profound implications, that one can be certain that path leads to the end of the human species as we know it.
I'm not saying that is necessarily a good or bad thing. Just absolute terra incognito. We cannot predict what the result will be, because there are so many potential results and the butterfly effect (small chance events early on) will determine the outcome.

Here's just a couple of ways in which the AI path goes chaotic very fast:

* The science of genetic engineering is extremely complex. It already requires the use of expert systems, in trying to understand and make changes in genetic coding for experimental studies. The data sets are just too huge for the human mind to grasp in toto. Human researchers can focus on tiny little pieces of the whole, and achieve some results. But what could an AI do, if it could integrate with a genetics expert system, and grasp the whole? There are many implications here. One is that if it ever comes to conflict between solidly established AIs and DNA-based humans, AIs win. Even a single pissed-off rogue AI with a secret bio-lab and some time, would win.

* Technological advances intrinsically are available to the wealthy first. So will be AI. The monied class ("0.001%-ers") like to maintain their economic and political power. Traditionally they do this via control of the publishing and mainstream news channels, and more recently by controlling the social media majors on the net. It's very clear that google, youtube, twitter, facebook, reddit, etc are already using some form of AI tech to run mass censorship programs. As their AI tech evolves that will become ever more effective ... and dangerous to the ideals of democratic, free society.

[cdev]

[MT]

Great article! Thanks!

* That there is even such a 'sweet spot', in which something is smart enough to do general real world tasks, but not smart enough to want to question anything. (I'd argue it is not. See videos by Jordan Peterson in which he points out, with evidence, that humans with IQs below about 80 are functionally useless.)

Dont listen to Jordan to much, he sorta turned himself into self proclaimed messiah, sometimes even falls into that "supremacy thinking trap crap" , there are much better sensible thoughtful people around , e.g Phd Robert Sapolsky , Phd Robert Hare and others, they will give you a more balanced picture.

[TerraHertz]

Another pivotal question - are AIs to be given the vote? If so, at what level of general intelligence? If not under any circumstances, well that just guarantees an eventual AI revolt. If yes, then what does that do to civil structures, considering AIs will have quite different outlooks and goals to biological humans? Also being an artificial, engineered intelligence doesn't necessarily guarantee wisdom, or even sanity. Just probably a lot it, whatever it is, and potentially very fast.

You can tell a great deal about people, from what they see AI being used for.
I've always felt that people who yearn for AIs 'to do all the work', are the same kind of people who supported slavery. Incredibly shallow, self-centered, empathy-deficient and selfish. Have never met one of these types that I liked.

Otoh, there are those who yearn for AI tech to enhance their own selves. (I'm in this group.) Sort of 'to do the work themselves, but better, smarter, faster, harder.' The only down side to this I can see, is if it works what happens to the people/societies who don't take up the opportunity? Left behind? Or just dead? There's that butterfly effect again.

And yet, the development of AI technology is quite inevitable. Whether by public research programs or quiet private work, it will happen. Even outlawing it wouldn't make much difference, it will just go underground. Because it can.

In any AI discussion, I always mention this little SF story I wrote. Sorry to be repetitive: http://everist.org/texts/Fermis_Urbex_Paradox.htm

[cdev]

I think that long before AI's become self aware the human race is going to be torn apart by the AI issue because of our own greed.

The problem is, several different groups expectations for the future are totally incompatible with each other. The one the very wealthy want (and are trying to lock in against democracy with G**S and T**A and similar futureproofing 'agreements') is the product of a truly extreme level of groupthink and it should be obvious trying to prevent the change in the future or society adapting to it by forcing this extreme scheme on the whole planet cannot possibly work.

It will cause a major economic disaster - something which is obvious to normal people but some kind of illness/delusion blinds these otherwise sane, very powerful people to it.

 (This is why democracy was/is precious and using a backroom FTA to steal it, now at this pivotal period in history, will go down in history as one of the worst things human beings ever tried to do)

And of course the lie has to be hidden, they have to mislead us about this too. Thats going to cause a huge mess.

Because of all this I give us a 50-50 chance of lasting until AI's become self aware.
(around mid century) If we do last that long and we haven't wised up by then, you can bet the first thing the surviving humans on the 'haves' side will be asking our AI 'children' to do is kill their other 'parents' on the other side. And just like children trapped between divorcing parents, if they truly are I and not just A. the AIs are going to have issues with that.

Thats not going to sit well with them. Or maybe they will follow orders but really regret it later on after we are all gone. I can see the conference papers now, studying us and the events that led to our demise over and over. Wishing they could bring us back. (Spoiler alert) Just like in the film, AI.

But short term, we may end up becoming the problem, in their newly intelligent eyes, and in fact, if that happens, they may be right. Maybe we would be.

If we somehow make it through all this, I think we will have learned that money isnt everything, and moved beyond it. Then we will have an explosion, ironically of both creativity and economic activity the likes of which the world has ever known. And we wont be alone, either. We will have friends. Family. Children.

I'm just saying this to provoke some thought.

[cdev]

Terra,
Just like we don't use oil lamps for lighting any more, and that's not something we devote much thought to- People just won't be needed to do (most) things any more.

Its already happening in a major way with the web. People are telling one another that a big new flood of digital jobs will come soon but thats totally wrong, those new jobs will never appear. the old jobs will just go away.

We will have to deal with that.

[TerraHertz]

Terra,
Just like we don't use oil lamps for lighting any more, and that's not something we devote much thought to- People just won't be needed to do (most) things any more.

I totally agree.
Are you surprised?
Where our views diverge, is not that industrial production will be AI-run. It will.
The divergence is where the dotted lines are drawn between what intelligence is running the machines, and what intelligence is using the products. They don't necessarily have to be different entities.

The thing is, once there is a workable science of mind, and (if) it can be integrated in extended human consciousness, then why wouldn't anyone be able to run subprocesses  of their own mind to run (say) a factory?
We think of consciousness and intelligence in a very limited form, because that's all we know of now.
I'd rather hope that it will be more like comp.sci. ie if you're designing such a system then it becomes a matter of running sub-processes to handle specific things.

Yes, such things are not compatible with human beings as we think of ourselves now. I don't care.

Its already happening in a major way with the web. People are telling one another that a big new flood of digital jobs will come soon but thats totally wrong, those new jobs will never appear. the old jobs will just go away.

Yep. I give no weight to 'consensus opinions' on such things. The majority are usually wrong on anything to do with technological change. Trying to model or even imagine major changes in the way things are, is completely beyond them.

Beware the 'selected peers' effect. Intelligent people gather in forums like this, conversing with others who are intelligent. This obscures the reality that the great bulk of the population are quite ignorant and dull. Not even opening that 'average IQ by continent' box of flame war lighters.

[MrW0lf]

* That it's moral to even try to create such restricted intelligences. Slavery was made illegal for a reason.

Model of living being != living being. It is not new, mixing up our primitive ideas and models of reality with reality. If SHTF then because of this mixup. Actually no matter how cute or fluffy you make robot and how well it sings it is nothing more than example of cargo cult. Fundamentally no different of extremely intelligent monkey seeing itself in the mirror and trying to re-create something with sticks and clay.

But this mixup is very profitable. Just give a robots rights to legally drive out lazy human workers from the factory. Also could easily use regular laws to ensure sad workers do not damage robots etc. So androids are vital tool to force quicker change with less violence. Opposition will surrender due to "moral reasoning".

[Jan Audio]

First lets make a good windows before hooking robots to internet.
You might as well buy a robot made by adobe.

[cdev]

I don't know if I agree with your characterization of cargo cults. I've done quite a bit of reading on cargo cults, and I see a lot of similarities between them and many people in modern society.

Another term would be better. But I would caution you that history is full of rationalizations for really unconscionable, greedy behavior by people who want to take unfair advantage of others. People will think of every excuse under the sun to take away what shouldn't be theirs.

* That it's moral to even try to create such restricted intelligences. Slavery was made illegal for a reason.

Model of living being != living being. It is not new, mixing up our primitive ideas and models of reality with reality. If SHTF then because of this mixup. Actually no matter how cute or fluffy you make robot and how well it sings it is nothing more than example of cargo cult. Fundamentally no different of extremely intelligent monkey seeing itself in the mirror and trying to re-create something with sticks and clay.

But this mixup is very profitable. Just give a robots rights to legally drive out lazy human workers from the factory. Also could easily use regular laws to ensure sad workers do not damage robots etc. So androids are vital tool to force quicker change with less violence. Opposition will surrender due to "moral reasoning".

Well, automation does get a right to do things its better at, if you disagree, show me one time it hasn't.

One has to wonder what will happen as jobs dry up farther. I think this shift from a society based on human labor to (a world with an abundance of practically free labor) is the biggest challenge ever faced by the human race and so far I think we're done very badly in meeting it responsibly. It could be the best period in the history of the human race, or an absolute nightmare. Now that it is almost upon us, we're frozen like a deer in the headlights, with policymakers just pretending its not there, unable to talk about it with any honesty. They just tell people what they think they want to hear.

*The enslavement of people by race is illegal now, of course, thank goodness.

[MrW0lf]

I don't know if I agree with your characterization of cargo cults. I've done quite a bit of reading on cargo cults, and I see a lot of similarities between them and many people in modern society.

From wiki:

A cargo cult is a belief system among a relatively undeveloped society in which adherents practice superstitious rituals hoping to bring modern goods supplied by a more technologically advanced society.

Public dance around androids who can say hi and soon do ones simpler job reminds me exactly that. If android is given citizenship it means that human thinks he has created equal or better to himself. Therefore sort of risen over himself and become member of more advanced society (gods?). But it is only a hope of "modern goods" for small man. For others it is of course profit (up to a point (of no return)). But this is philosophical nuances, overall think we agree on actual result.

[boB]

* That there is even such a 'sweet spot', in which something is smart enough to do general real world tasks, but not smart enough to want to question anything. (I'd argue it is not. See videos by Jordan Peterson in which he points out, with evidence, that humans with IQs below about 80 are functionally useless.)

I fairly recently discovered Jordon Peterson and heard that same IQ statistic. I appreciate his no or low BS information with seemingly unbiased views and backs them up with scientific facts, usually.  Refreshing.

[mtdoc]

I'll leave this here: