AI destroying economic system

[brucehoult]

Another possible danger is the long-range potential for eroding human intelligence. Now you object and say, how could that possibly happen, when "AI" will in fact do the opposite by opening floodgates of knowledge to everybody? Well, it could happen through a gradual over-reliance on our part on querying "the oracle" for every bit of information rather than using our own resources (i.e., our heads) to get the answer to a question.

This exact danger has been warned of in the past for at least:

- writing (as recorded by Plato in "Phaedrus")

- the printing press

- cheap novels

- electronic calculators (1970s)

- word processors and spreadsheets

- Google

- smartphones

- GPS

In addition many technologies have been accused of making people more passive rather than reducing intelligence or problem solving or learned knowledge directly:

- telegraph

- telephone

- radio

- TV

- video games

Let's not leave out:

- public dancing

- rock and roll music

- pornography

Of course it may be that the warnings have been true every single time.

[Siwastaja]

One of them is its potential for bringing on a condition where people no longer trust any sources of information

Oh but wouldn't that be great? People would have to start trusting their own observations and experiments, and direct interaction with other human beings, and build trust on them on individual level (by learning to know them). That would be a huge advance in society.

Contamination of "trusted" sources unfortunately happened well before AI. There has never been such a thing as a generic source you can trust. Some people believe what is said on TV, or newspapers from large mainstream media outlets, but these were always compromised, these always had a political, religious or some other kind of an agenda. (During different times, the agenda of course changes.)

I think you have a valid point - you are right. I don't like the fact we have to trust and accept without any questioning "official" information fed to us, and lately who feeds that information has become more fluffy; in totalitarian systems, it's the government and a few selected media outlets controlled by said government, but in modern times it's a weird and untraceable mix of megacorporations and AI systems hallucinating something up and now you are supposed to trust all this.

I trust in people - people hate this already and will get fed up with it. As a result, and I quote you because it was so well said: they no longer trust any sources of information.

And that's a great thing. That's exactly what we should do: stop trusting sources because they feel trustworthy. Instead, evaluate what is being said, and compare with your own experiences, observations - does this make sense? Use incoming data, no matter of source, only as provoke thoughts.

But that is a big shift, indeed. We have been taught, nearly aggressively during last years, that certain types of sources are The Truth, and "alternative sources" are no good even as thought-provoking, so they should be ignored (even better, banned, but that doesn't play well with the idea of freedom of speech/press). If we enter a situation where any source is equally good input material for our own thinking, where nothing is trusted at face value, then... I think this is very good!

If AI helps us to reach the saturation point in meaningless noise, then great!

[paulca]

Is it a difference that AI (LLMS) is the first instance of us automating cognitive labour?

Other industrial advances have automated "physical labour".

I suppose you could argue that an abacus or calculator is cognitive offload?

[Siwastaja]

Is it a difference that AI (LLMS) is the first instance of us automating cognitive labour?

But it isn't. Decision-making (e.g., how banks operate) has been automated long before neural networks, using all sorts of algorithms.

[paulca]

Is it a difference that AI (LLMS) is the first instance of us automating cognitive labour?

But it isn't. Decision-making (e.g., how banks operate) has been automated long before neural networks, using all sorts of algorithms.

Hmm.  I'm not sure that applies as cognitive labour.  In my experience of banks, what you may be referring to is the automation of the "middle office" and yes I have worked on many such project. 

The processes at that level are more like code.  Just not literally code ... yet.  Business process code if you will.  The cognitive effort has been spent in advance to actually DENY the operative the ability to think.  Just enter the data, fill out the form, follow the steps, tick the boxes.

Technically it wouldn't mater if you were doing the process with pen and paper or with a fancy HTML wizard with JS calculations, the same process steps will be followed.  The former would take longer to 'action'.

When we automate them we start with the business process documentation and rarely even need to engage the business as it is that well specified already... before engineering got involved.  The priority is to push "Human intervention" into the smallest corners you can.  Only pop the process onto a human's queue if the software cannot handle the current flow or exceptional flow.  The target would be a percentage reduction in 'human hours' required.

Are these automating cognitive effort?  Is "Filling in a form and ticking boxes" cognitive effort when it can be automated with basic software?

I think we'd need to start by defining what "Cognitive labour" is?

[Siwastaja]

Hmm.  I'm not sure that applies as cognitive labour.  In my experience of banks, what you may be referring to is the automation of the "middle office" and yes I have worked on many such project. 

The processes at that level are more like code.  Just not literally code ... yet.  Business process code if you will.  The cognitive effort has been spent in advance to actually DENY the operative the ability to think.  Just enter the data, fill out the form, follow the steps, tick the boxes.

Pre-AI:

* Can I have money
* No
* Why?
* Computer says no

Post-AI:

* Can I have money
* No
* Why?
* Computer says no


The difference that, pre-AI, only a specialized team of specialists, who are unreachable, can analyze algorithmic decisions in theory (by reading 100 000 lines of legacy mess of code), and that post-AI, no one can analyze the decisions, is trivial. The end result is the same: computer says no.

[perieanuo]

I disagree totally. I think it is the same scare every time some kind of work is automated.

everyone is correct. ai - ex classic automation - is progress, BUT if it isn't shared in the society, results are bad, over polarization rich vs poor, we're going straight into scifi scenarios becoming real. in my head universal revenue is the only peaceful solution, but the rich won't accept to share "une part de gateau" pardon my french (in fact i'm also french)

[tszaboo]

I disagree totally. I think it is the same scare every time some kind of work is automated.

everyone is correct. ai - ex classic automation - is progress, BUT if it isn't shared in the society, results are bad, over polarization rich vs poor, we're going straight into scifi scenarios becoming real. in my head universal revenue is the only peaceful solution, but the rich won't accept to share "une part de gateau" pardon my french (in fact i'm also french)

Oh yes, this seems to be the answer to everything.
Taxes are 5% more than they should be -> let's try communism.
The yearly housing market growth is 0.3% less and that causes a housing shortage -> let's try communism.
Some taxation loopholes allow people to dodge taxation and become billionaires -> let's try communism.
It rains on thursday -> let's try communism.

I'm sick and tired of people, who try to solve every minor problem with smashing the fabric of our society with this.
You will starve to death waiting in a breadline. Stop it.

[paulca]

Communism is alive and well and found mostly in places like Kansas.  Although technically as it's "by choice" "opt in" it's not really the same flavour of communism from textbooks.

[PlainName]

I'm sick and tired of people, who try to solve every minor problem with smashing the fabric of our society with this.

What is minor about losing your job and being unable to afford food or heating, or even a place to live?

[tszaboo]

I'm sick and tired of people, who try to solve every minor problem with smashing the fabric of our society with this.

What is minor about losing your job and being unable to afford food or heating, or even a place to live?

"Death is a preferable alternative to communism" - Liberty prime.

[free_electron]

i hope we all live long enough, or at least our children to see the world evolve to a post-scarcity society. Where you can pursue your interests without worrying about housing, medical , food and transport. Kind of like startrek. Everything is available in abundance for free due to automation. You apply yourself to improve science and knowledge and that is the return: growth as a society.

But with the current powers in charge that are running on greed ... i think it is more likely we will all live in something more like "fallout" than "startrek"

[golden_labels]

Let’s continue seeing problems and solutions in terms of 19th century ideologies. Let’s rely on notions that were outdated during your grandparent’s childhood. Let’s anachronistically attribute our own beliefs to people who lived a hundred years ago. That will certainly do us much good!

/s

[tszaboo]

i hope we all live long enough, or at least our children to see the world evolve to a post-scarcity society. Where you can pursue your interests without worrying about housing, medical , food and transport. Kind of like startrek. Everything is available in abundance for free due to automation. You apply yourself to improve science and knowledge and that is the return: growth as a society.

But with the current powers in charge that are running on greed ... i think it is more likely we will all live in something more like "fallout" than "startrek"

Or Expanse. Where 95% of Earth population is doing nothing, living in a ghetto getting addicted to the most recent drugs.
You see even people here started asking for this. "I'd like some moneys for doing nothing"
And looks like some American blue cities are well on their way of building this future.

At that point' I rather get plugged into a vat of goo and be plugged into the Matrix than this future.
It's bullshit that there will be "nothing to do" for people. If you don't think that an intelligent person cannot contribute to your goals the issue are your goals. Aim higher.

[paulca]

Black Mirror.  If you are looking for potential futures don't watch Black Mirror.  Reality apparently watched it and just like Idiocracy is rapidly seemingly becoming a manual not a warning.  Similar to Blind Faith as well.

Black Mirror episode one.  "Domesticated humans".  Maybe not the exact flavour from that episode, but somewhere close to it.  We are already domesticated humans for the most part, but it can get worse.

To take my own argument apart though.  "Domesticated" in the sense that we can no longer survive in the wild.  We need society and societies infrastructure to survive day to day.

However.  If you were to "head out into the wilderness alone" you would probably find that the "human hardware" we run on, is not designed to be a solo survivor and is in fact designed to be a social animal.

So did we ever have the tools and hardware to "survive in the wild"?

I think the honest answer is no.  We survive in tribes, groups, villiages and societies.  Never alone.  If you have ever been in total isolation for a period of time, you will hear the hardware getting upset and it's not a very nice feeling.  It has no language but it "feels" "we are going to die if we remain alone" and speaks from millions of years of evolutionary experience.

A maybe brighter read would be Aldus Huxley Brave New World.  No solution though.  Just "pain free" domestication with Soma.

[TUMEMBER]

Black Mirror.  If you are looking for potential futures don't watch Black Mirror.  Reality apparently watched it and just like Idiocracy is rapidly seemingly becoming a manual not a warning.  Similar to Blind Faith as well.

I think the honest answer is no.  We survive in tribes, groups, villiages and societies.  Never alone.  If you have ever been in total isolation for a period of time, you will hear the hardware getting upset and it's not a very nice feeling.  It has no language but it "feels" "we are going to die if we remain alone" and speaks from millions of years of evolutionary experience.



A maybe brighter read would be Aldus Huxley Brave New World.  No solution though.  Just "pain free" domestication with Soma.

 Elysium-This is the "default path"—HuXley's Brave New World is an overly optimistic utopia. Elysium, but without the slightest possibility of rebellion, a complete separation of "superhumans" and "human resources" on a decaying planet. This is already slowly happening—the super-rich and the rest of the impoverished middle class being pushed into the muck—Musk's Mars Project as a prelude.

[joss]

What are you doing to prepare for the change that’s coming?

No matter how disruptive it is,

complaining won’t change anything.

[PlainName]

complaining won’t change anything.

It can do and has.

OTOH, keeping quiet will definitely not change anything.

[TUMEMBER]

What are you doing to prepare for the change that’s coming?

No matter how disruptive it is,

complaining won’t change anything.

Nothing, it's not my problem anymore. It's beyond my event horizon. I gaze stoically at the setting sun; everything must end someday. You won't even take the awareness of your existence with you to the "other side."

"It's absurd that we were born and that we will die."
Escapism.

[NE666]

i hope we all live long enough, or at least our children to see the world evolve to a post-scarcity society. Where you can pursue your interests without worrying about housing, medical , food and transport. Kind of like startrek. Everything is available in abundance for free due to automation. You apply yourself to improve science and knowledge and that is the return: growth as a society.

With the technologies we've developed and will continue to develop something akin to that vision might just be possible in the not-so-distant future.

But not for a global population of 8 billion or more. Perhaps a tenth of that. That's the reality of that kind of utopia, removing 'scarcity' means removing mouths to feed, and bodies to warm, clothe and shelter.

You'll note that, in the contemporary cannon, the Star Trek universe is set in a period after global nuclear devastation has dealt with that impediment.

[nctnico]

One of them is its potential for bringing on a condition where people no longer trust any sources of information

Oh but wouldn't that be great? People would have to start trusting their own observations and experiments, and direct interaction with other human beings, and build trust on them on individual level (by learning to know them). That would be a huge advance in society.

Contamination of "trusted" sources unfortunately happened well before AI. There has never been such a thing as a generic source you can trust. Some people believe what is said on TV, or newspapers from large mainstream media outlets, but these were always compromised, these always had a political, religious or some other kind of an agenda. (During different times, the agenda of course changes.)

I think you have a valid point - you are right. I don't like the fact we have to trust and accept without any questioning "official" information fed to us, and lately who feeds that information has become more fluffy; in totalitarian systems, it's the government and a few selected media outlets controlled by said government, but in modern times it's a weird and untraceable mix of megacorporations and AI systems hallucinating something up and now you are supposed to trust all this.

I trust in people - people hate this already and will get fed up with it. As a result, and I quote you because it was so well said: they no longer trust any sources of information.

And that's a great thing. That's exactly what we should do: stop trusting sources because they feel trustworthy. Instead, evaluate what is being said, and compare with your own experiences, observations - does this make sense? Use incoming data, no matter of source, only as provoke thoughts.

I don't think that works in a complex society. Take something simple as buying apples in a supermarket. How do you know these are safe to eat? Aren't there too many pesticides on them? Or grown on polluted ground? And this goes for everything around you. In the end you need to build a chain of trust consisting of scientific communities, government agencies and consumers working together to keep watch over what is regarded as being true. Otherwise you'd go mad with all the information you need to check and process yourself. You wouldn't have a life.

[free_electron]

scientific communities, government agencies

Queue the flat-earthers, moon landing deniers and religious maniacs. As for government ... elected thieves and "zakkenvullers"

[wilfred]

I found out today that there was once a job called knocker-uppers who were employed by people to walk the streets and knock loudly on the door or window and waken them to go to work on time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocker-up

I heard it on this "odd-lots" podcast episode on self driving cars. Which in themselves are made possible with AI. It was an interesting episode and it isn't a podcast where I listen to every episode but some are very well made and informative. I thought this one was.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/search-engine-presents-are-you-a-good-driver/id1056200096?i=1000760334934

If Apple isn't your thing then here is the starting point. https://www.bloomberg.com/oddlots
It is the April 9th episode "Search Engine presents: Are you a good driver?" the second part is  “The Trial of the Driverless Car”

I knew there were Lamplighters before electric street lights became adopted. Neither exist anymore and so too it seems drivers as a job may also fall by the wayside eventually. That's a lot of jobs at risk.

[brucehoult]

Have you never watched a UK movie or TV episode in which a woman says "Knock me up sometime"?

She doesn't mean to make her pregnant, though that might happen too.

[PlainName]

so too it seems drivers as a job may also fall by the wayside eventually

Major difference between knockerup and lamplighter, and drivers is that most drivers want to drive. Sure, there are driving jobs and no doubt those drivers could we well sick of it, but I would suggest that most cars are bought by people who want to drive. If their car comes with AI actual full self-driving, it would spend a fair amount of time disabled.