When we can't keep up anymore, then what? (AI)

[Nimos]

I find myself agreeing with @Nimos the more he speaks on this subject. I think before when we talked/argued about it, it was like we were taking a coin, and I was looking at one edge of it, and he was simply looking at the other.

Im obviously just guessing and might be a bit of a "doomsayer", but I just think with how things are now, when these technologies emerge they seem to explode, It's not just an electric saw that gets introduced so you can chop down a tree faster. It's like throwing in a machine so you can chop down the whole forest in a few hours, while at the same time painting your house and cleaning up the trash on the streets and everyone goes "Where the hell did that come from?"

 

[Secret Chief]

In the US, I'd say that any solution would come at the very last moment.

 

[Nimos]

...and the chances of that happening are....

I don't know, because there is no money in it, which seems to be politicians' best motivation for doing anything.

 

[Nimos]

In the US, I'd say that any solution would come at the very last moment.

It's the same in EU, or at least in Denmark, no one is prepared for anything. Think about how many climate meetings they have had and they still can't agree on anything, so I don't see how this is any difference.

The biggest difference here compared to climate change is that AI is an arms race that no one wants to lose. Does anyone really believe that the US or China etc. would make limitations on AI technologies if it could end up hurting the economy?

At least that issue is not really there with climate change, because you can still make laws about it while still having a good economy.

 

[Quintessence]

This is not sneaking up on us, this is basically stepping on us and we are still not reacting. I haven't heard any politicians or economists addressing this potential issue.

There was something just a few weeks ago on this front, actually. Looks like the work will start next month.

Tech Chiefs to Gather in Washington Next Month on A.I. Regulations

The leaders of Google, OpenAI, Microsoft and others are meeting with lawmakers on Sept. 13 to kick off listening sessions that may shape A.I. rules in the United States.

www.nytimes.com

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

As far as the rise of robots, tech, and AI goes, on a personal level, I'm not sure what will happen, but as an introvert, who doesn't take much for granted, I feel I may be more prepared for it than most, possibly.

 

[Nimos]

There was something just a few weeks ago on this front, actually. Looks like the work will start next month.

Tech Chiefs to Gather in Washington Next Month on A.I. Regulations

The leaders of Google, OpenAI, Microsoft and others are meeting with lawmakers on Sept. 13 to kick off listening sessions that may shape A.I. rules in the United States.

www.nytimes.com

This is probably good, but as I just wrote above, the US is not going to restrict this, these companies are not going to accept being at a disadvantage against foreign countries and again the issue is that some companies can work on this in secrecy and lets be honest the governments around the world is already doing this big time, lets not fool anyone

So the biggest issue is trust and I don't think that is possible in the world we live in. So my guess is that these meetings might give the impression of something, but that it will go nowhere in regards to what can be done or not, at least not when it comes to how this AI can benefit US companies.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's the same in EU, or at least in Denmark, no one is prepared for anything. Think about how many climate meetings they have had and they still can't agree on anything, so I don't see how this is any difference.

The biggest difference here compared to climate change is that AI is an arms race that no one wants to lose. Does anyone really believe that the US or China etc. would make limitations on AI technologies if it could end up hurting the economy?

At least that issue is not really there with climate change, because you can still make laws about it while still having a good economy.

At least in the UK we're making some changes. About 100 new licences are being issued for more oil and gas exploration and we'll soon be permitted to put yet more pollution into our rivers. You can't say we're not up to task of saving the planet, eh?

- UK defies climate warnings with new oil and gas licences

- England’s rivers at risk as Michael Gove rips up rules on new housing

 

[Nimos]

As far as the rise of robots, tech, and AI goes, on a personal level, I'm not sure what will happen, but as an introvert, who doesn't take much for granted, I feel I may be more prepared for it than most, possibly.

I am as well but also love all technology and stuff like this so the more robots and AI the better But im also a humanist so don't want humans to suffer as a result of it, because we weren't prepared, we don't need to add more suffering to ourselves than we already do

 

[Quintessence]

This is probably good, but as I just wrote above, the US is not going to restrict this, these companies are not going to accept being at a disadvantage against foreign countries and again the issue is that some companies can work on this in secrecy and lets be honest the governments around the world is already doing this big time, lets not fool anyone

So the biggest issue is trust and I don't think that is possible in the world we live in. So my guess is that these meetings might give the impression of something, but that it will go nowhere in regards to what can be done or not, at least not when it comes to how this AI can benefit US companies.

You asked if the issue was being addressed by political powers - provided an example demonstrating just so. Therefore the issue is not "sneaking up" on us and and we aren't doing the whole "not reacting" thing. Hell, there's been more movement on this than more important issues and that's quite frankly sad (but also neither here nor there).

I trust humans will do what they've always done when it comes to anything and everything in life - whatever it is they are capable of, without regard for any limits other than those imposed directly by the gods. Things will flow as they flow. And they will all come to an end, inevitably, and eventually.

 

[Nimos]

At least in the UK we're making some changes. About 100 new licences are being issued for more oil and gas exploration and we'll soon be permitted to put yet more pollution into our rivers. You can't say we're not up to task of saving the planet, eh?

- UK defies climate warnings with new oil and gas licences

- England’s rivers at risk as Michael Gove rips up rules on new housing

That's perfect

I can tell you that in Denmark it is going excellent, we have always been told by the politicians how good we were doing until a report was released that showed that we are amongst the 20% worst countries in the world. So I guess the UK is trying to reach our level?

 

[Secret Chief]

That's perfect

I can tell you that in Denmark it is going excellent, we have always been told by the politicians how good we were doing until a report was released that showed that we are amongst the 20% worst countries in the world. So I guess the UK is trying to reach our level?

There I was thinking the Scandies were all cool n groovy.

 

[Nimos]

You asked if the issue was being addressed by political powers - provided an example demonstrating just so. Therefore the issue is not "sneaking up" on us and and we aren't doing the whole "not reacting" thing. Hell, there's been more movement on this than more important issues and that's quite frankly sad (but also neither here nor there).

I trust humans will do what they've always done when it comes to anything and everything in life - whatever it is they are capable of, without regard for any limits other than those imposed directly by the gods. Things will flow as they flow. And they will all come to an end, inevitably, and eventually.

What I mean is solutions to the problem and honestly, I think the politicians are more interested in the economy and security than the well-being of people, obviously this is part of it, but again I don't think there is a national solution. I don't see how there could be except on some specific topics, like commercials, data collection, privacy issues etc. But in regards to the development and control of AI, I don't think there will be anything. That is what I meant.

 

[Nimos]

There I was thinking the Scandies were all cool n groovy.

So did we, as long as you don't scratch the surface

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What I mean is solutions to the problem and honestly, I think the politicians are more interested in the economy and security than the well-being of people, obviously this is part of it, but again I don't think there is a national solution. I don't see how there could be except on some specific topics, like commercials, data collection, privacy issues etc. But in regards to the development and control of AI, I don't think there will be anything. That is what I meant.

The only solution I can think of is let these robots and this AI get to work for companies, let it fill their purse, then tax things considerably, and put Universal Basic Income in effect.

 

[Nimos]

The only solution I can think of is let these robots and this AI get to work for companies, let it fill their purse, then tax things considerably, and put Universal Basic Income in effect.

Something like that. The question is if there will be any value or would the economy even be workable?

Let's say you have 1000 people who each get a UBI of 100$ each month and we can assume that this will be enough for a good living standard because it has to.

But if we were clever we wouldn't allow people to get in debt, because it rarely brings anything positive with it. People should be able to live in a decent house, buy food etc. for these UBI or it would be pointless. Eventually wouldn't we end up with it not making sense to even have a UBI money system in the first place? Instead just use a point system, which can't be traded or gambled away etc.

I don't know if that makes sense?

But do you see the issue if you have a luxury house that costs 500$ a month then no one could live there except maybe a few people that have jobs, so there would be no reason to build it. So the economy or what to call it, would have to adjust to the UBI or to a living standard that people would be satisfied with because none of us would live in a place without water or heat. Do you get what I mean, the economy we have at the moment is purely based on purchasing power and inequality, where there is something for everyone. But that wouldn't work in a UBI system. Because you can't really make more money than 80% of the rest of the world assuming that it was a global economy system.

 

[Nimos]

This is a lecture from Yuyal Noah Harari, that has written a book called Sapiens, which has nothing to do with AI, but it is a very good book about humanity in my opinion.

But his presentation is very good I think and touches on yet some other issues with AI. A particularly good point he is making and that might be more concerning for some people or more understandable. This is in regard to human culture and how an AI could manipulate us without us even knowing it, simply using language. I think that is very interesting and concerning because we all know how easily humans are manipulated, Hitler, cult leaders, commercials etc. all are done using language and essentially this is exactly what these language models AI is designed for. And make the point that people talking about killer robots etc. is not needed because as we already know people will kill each other if they are convinced about something enough so it could potentially do that.

He gives the example of how social media is already used to manipulate us, in regards to what videos etc. we are presented for, which probably doesn't come as a surprise for anyone. The big difference is these AI are far beyond those capabilities in how to manipulate people. And also mentions the last US election and how they couldn't figure out who won and the simple fact that these AI could "contaminate" the internet with false information on a whole new scale and given the next US election, it will be interesting to see how much misinformation is going to be created.

He also talks about how new religions could even emerge from this, so if people are more interested in this kind of thing how we could be influenced or manipulated it is well worth watching. But again, this just raises even more issues, if it can potentially control human culture through manipulation as he also explains, we are in for some potentially serious issues.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Let's say you have 1000 people who each get a UBI of 100$ each month and we can assume that this will be enough for a good living standard because it has to.

Do you mean $1000?

I'd consider $1000 the bare minimum anyone would want to do in such a system. Even $1000 may be low for anything other than an introductory rate.

Regardless, I think the math might work out under the right circumstances. If you give everyone a high enough amount, you might be able to roll it into the social security system and save some money as well (by not necessarily paying two whole payments, but a reduced combination of the two payments).

 

[Nimos]

Do you mean $1000?

I'd consider $1000 the bare minimum anyone would want to do in such a system. Even $1000 may be low for anything other than an introductory rate.

Regardless, I think the math might work out under the right circumstances. If you give everyone a high enough amount, you might be able to roll it into the social security system and save some money as well (by not necessarily paying two whole payments, but a reduced combination of the two payments).

I didn't mean any specific value, it was just using random numbers that were easy to work with, you could just call it 100 units or whatever. It wasn't meant to reflect the present day at all

I think you misunderstood my point or I explained it poorly, so let me try another way.

If we assume that 80% of the population is living off a UBI, at which point wouldn't it make sense to even have it? because everything that is produced has to fit these 80% right. If so many people are living on UBI, there shouldn't really be any poverty because everyone gets the same, except those 20% who have a job, which might earn a bit more.

So you couldn't create an economy that fits the 20% because then 80% of the people would be poor and there would be too little purchasing power. So the economy would have to fit the 80% and the 20% might have a bit more luxury.

The point is at which point doesn't it make sense to even have an economy based on a UBI? if this UBI is 100 units and everything is fit to match that value anyway everyone would live in luxury, and 99% of all things are created by AI and robots anyway?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the insensitive to do things was out of interest and passion for something rather than money? or simply that people took turns, so you might only work 1 or 2 days a week? Does that make sense? A system based around money if these have potentially no value seems meaningless because again, no one in such a system where so many rely on a fixed income should be poor, that would be an awful system, wouldn't work and be pointless I think.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I didn't mean any specific value, it was just using random numbers that were easy to work with, you could just call it 100 units or whatever. It wasn't meant to reflect the present day at all

I think you misunderstood my point or I explained it poorly, so let me try another way.

If we assume that 80% of the population is living off a UBI, at which point wouldn't it make sense to even have it? because everything that is produced has to fit these 80% right. If so many people are living on UBI, there shouldn't really be any poverty because everyone gets the same, except those 20% who have a job, which might earn a bit more.

So you couldn't create an economy that fits the 20% because then 80% of the people would be poor and there would be too little purchasing power. So the economy would have to fit the 80% and the 20% might have a bit more luxury.

The point is at which point doesn't it make sense to even have an economy based on a UBI? if this UBI is 100 units and everything is fit to match that value anyway everyone would live in luxury, and 99% of all things are created by AI and robots anyway?

Wouldn't it make more sense that the insensitive to do things was out of interest and passion for something rather than money? or simply that people took turns, so you might only work 1 or 2 days a week? Does that make sense? A system based around money if these have potentially no value seems meaningless because again, no one in such a system where so many rely on a fixed income should be poor, that would be an awful system, wouldn't work and be pointless I think.

Thinking it over, I think the only way it might really actually work, is to give Universal Basic Income to the people who are working, as well.

Otherwise, it could create problems, I think.