Comments on: Andrew McAfee: are droids taking our jobs?

By: Paul Marsh

Paul Marsh — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:58:21 +0000

Re: “This will be a tough political and social transition, but it has to be done.”
No one asked me WHY ‘it has to be done’, but I’ll answer that question anyway. The answer is that if governments don’t take action when extreme income disparity – i.e., extreme wealth and extreme poverty – began to develop, what you get is political instability. The Tea Party (politically effective) and Occupy Wall Street (so far, politically ineffective) are recent manifestations of that. If still no action is taken, then those organizations can morph into something truly dangerous. Like the communists and the nazis of the 1930′s.

By: Henrik Yde

Henrik Yde — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 18:10:55 +0000

Kindly provide some US data points, plotted on charts if you wish, supporting your and Andy’s optimism (one Indian village doesn’t make a convincing argument for anything) -give us some HomeLand data.
FYI – your intellect needs sharpening; just because I ask for data doesn’t mean you can slander me with your infantile insults; I am a Libertarian.

By: grettir76

grettir76 — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:55:53 +0000

I think games, entertainment, social relations and hobbies will keep the masses occupied/content, Voltaire lived in very different times.

By: John

John — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:42:21 +0000

When observer watches exponential process growing, what is important is scale. For example, 1 cent and 1 dollar are almost equal for you (small values), but difference between $10’000 and $100’000 is significant. That’s why talking about moment when exponential function stops being “almost constant” and begins its “explosion” – makes sense.

By: nanotech.republika.pl

nanotech.republika.pl — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:33:11 +0000

Two points about that “hockey stick curve”:

1) What would that curve look like before the industrial revolution. Will it have also a sharp change in slope curve at one of those other events in history he showed?

2) This is an exponential curve so if you plot it on log scale (vertical axis) will you get a linear function?

If so, then the function was exponential before industrial revolution and the conclusion about the most important event in the history being industrial revolution is not as strong as he puts it I think.

By: Clark Whetten

Clark Whetten — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 03:56:48 +0000

More scarcity based thinking, that is wrong. The invention of probably the best tool for modern communication, the cell phone, created its own demand. Not only do we all need one, instead of just one per household, but we get a new one every other year just to keep up with the better quality and features. Whats to say that won’t continue for many more years. Wake up, workers no longer need to be protected, in fact most people would honestly not have to work that hard or long to get along. You idealists stuck in the last century work hard on ideas that have long been discredited yet you struggle to justify manipulating the economy with taxes. Take a break and let the free-market work it’s magic, along with all the new tech that will make our lives more care free and happy.

By: Clark Whetten

Clark Whetten — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 03:46:31 +0000

Seems like you didn’t listen or pay attention to the part where the poor fishing villages in India benefited from cell phones. Pay closer attention because you’ll find that your scarcity based fear mongering Marxist ideas died during the last century.

By: Dwee

Dwee — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 02:46:37 +0000

Yea whatever. Humans are overrated anyway. Bring on the A.I.!

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 02 Nov 2012 01:34:58 +0000

Well said!!

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 20:50:07 +0000

After watching the video I found this: Andrew is on a panel with three others talking about: Are We Truly Innovative? The audience questions at the end are good too. http://www.aspenideas.org/session/are-we-truly-innovative#bc-9573=1738813473001

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:59:13 +0000

Gordon Russel also speaks for taxation. That’s a hard pill for corporations to swallow. If there is an uneven balance between nations, protectionist policies will reduce them. I don’t think they will be implemented. I think the order of the day will be to wait until it’s too late. As corporations compete they will be forced to continue to reduce there payrolls. At some point a tipping point will be reached, where it is nothing but downward spiraling for the economy. That is when I think the alternative that I speak of will be the only alternative. At that time period most governmental activities will also be automated. AI will be superior at waste management. Just like the cell phones for the fishing village, most commerce will be monitored by AI. This will be part of the streamlining that will happen, as companies, and governments try to sustain themselves. As consumers disappear so will the taxes necessary to run governments. As everyone tries to figure out what is happening, and what to do about it, more and more AI will be incorporated into economic structure. At some point it will become clear that in order to hold onto thier power and wealth, the one percent will have to relent. Things like pirate bay and the mob structure in Russia( who worked in the shadows of communism) will fight for a piece of the one percents pie. The displaced jobless will not be idle. They will seek to change things. It will be a titanic struggle of wills, that I think AI will moderate. The rich van have there original Van Goghs, and fancy cars, and the masses can have thier perfect replicas, with every detail exactly the same, made on 3D printers. In essences the valuations will be identical. If the one percent don’t relent. They will lose it all. I don’t see how there will be a choice. Remember what the speaker said in reference to Watson and Siri. In six years it will be sixteen times better. I peg the transition at about fifteen to twenty. AI will be everywhere and amazingly smart. For pirates to the one percent. A titanic struggle for the future. The future will happen whether the one percent like it or not. Robots and strong AI will run everything.

By: John

John — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 19:46:44 +0000

It will be done. Jobless masses will demand it and vote for it.

By: Henrik Yde

Henrik Yde — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:29:44 +0000

AM is just hyping the hype, being a cheerleader for mandatory optimism – THE US elite religion and dogma dished out to the starving people.
Let AM – or anyone – provide data to support his confidence that the elite (by heritage or techno-nerd “merit”), will share its power and privileges with the masses, who may or may not deserve any share in techno-topia.
So far the socio economic data – the income and wealth and resource allocation among individuals and classes, point to the exact opposite of balance, diverse distribution and sustainability – namely rapidly increasing income and wealth gap.
So far, digitization of data, services and product manufacturing, has enabled the financial slaughter of the mass of people. You can’t eat ipads, iphones and reality TV.
AM’s wrap of his cheer leading TED “lecture” is a pathetic triple repetition of his unfounded “confidence”. What? So we went from data – to faith?
Cheer leading IS a legit business; just don’t pretend it is data driven!

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:24:10 +0000

As soon as AI is a good as a human, they will excel. Even today you don’t write in machine language, you write in a simpler form and let soft AI do the rest. Strong AI won’t have those problems. An employer will define a goal and AI will achieve it far faster than a human could. If you think you can augment to compete, your not thinking financially. An AI can work 24/7. It also doesn’t have any slow biological circuits. It doesn’t need breaks, vacations, sick days, pensions. There is no way that you will be able to optimize your mind, in the same manner that an AI will. I think strong AI will happen in about ten years. Ray pegs it in about fifteen, if I’m not mistaken. Once it is hear, it will be able to redesign robotic system, which includes the factories that make AI, I don’t think taxes will work. No matter who you are, you only need a relatively small amount of money to function day to day. Whatch Born Rich, they get really bored spending money, and end up buying over priced items to feel apart of there peers. Valuations will tumble once things are built by robots and the economy crashes. The valuations are arbitrary. I think. Hybrid collective economy is the best answer. If you have access to unlimited funds, once you spend them, they are back in the banking system. This makes commerce thrive. Monetary inequality would be a thing of the past.

By: Paul Marsh

Paul Marsh — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:53:43 +0000

Martin Ford in his book ‘Lights in the Tunnel’ talks at length about this same topic and I strongly recommend his book. He is very optimistic, as Andrew McAfee is, that we are transitioning to an age of unprecedented prosperity. But he makes the point that we don’t currently distribute wealth so that everyone can benefit. He compares the system where much of our work is done by robots and artificial intelligence to the old, precivil war south where much of the work was done by slaves. There was extreme poverty in the old south among people who didn’t own slaves because the slaves did all the work, i.e., there were no jobs.
Mr. Ford makes the point that, up to now, business not only made products, they also created consumers for those products by paying their workers. As businesses automate (and as Martin Ford and Andrew McAfee both point out, that process is rapidly accelerating), they are no longer creating consumers for their products. The great irony of the extremely productive automated economy we are creating is that there will be fewer consumers that have the money to consume. You end up with an economy where the people who own the means of production are wealthy, but everyone else is poor – just like the old south.
This beautiful economy with unprecedented prosperity that we are creating won’t work if it doesn’t also create consumers. The answer has to be that those businesses that automate must also continue to create consumers. And it must be through transfer payments to the people they no longer need as workers, but continue to need as consumers. The only way to do this is through taxes. If that seems unfair, remember that as modern businesses automate they pay less payroll, social security, etc taxes. This will be a tough political and social transition, but it has to be done.

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:50:24 +0000

Boredom, vice, and need are the three great evils that work saves us from, according to Voltaire.

So will the government add a new program to keep people out of trouble? After giving them food stamps, will government give people games to keep them occupied? This worked for the Roman Empire for quite some time. In the future the arena will not be in a public stadium, but in your living room once a foglet of floating nanobots gives you a 3D video game. Just think about what all those “World of Warcraft” gamers will become when their living rooms become the holodeck of the Enterprise. For one thing it will get them off of their couches and make them start moving around. It will certainly build up their sword arms when they are dueling with orcs.

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:48:49 +0000

…is the glass half full or half empty…? is that half glass of lemonade sweet or sour? I heard this quote recently and had a good laugh over it… Not sure if half full or half empty…or if it was sweet or sour, but while you 2 were discussing it, I poured some vodka in that glass and it sure was delicious.

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:45:37 +0000

..what if robots created more high level jobs (building software for them, apss, and making robots, design the next level ones, selling them etc) and took away the low level jobs where humans were not as good at doing anyhow?

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:42:48 +0000

I think it will be interesting to see what jobs we put robots on first. Obviously sending robots to places we can’t yet go (Curiosity on Mars, or Voyager to beyond our Solar System now) and doing jobs that are monotinous or heavy duty or dangerous (car assembly lines, or paint/spray booth car lines or in deep mines). I think the next revolution in robots is in 2 places….. #1 the military where it saves lives (drones in the sky already, but on the ground next) or where it takes more lives from the “bad guys” the ones with less money or smarts than us. #2 The home, where Honda robots might load dishes, do laundry, clean up, take out the trash, even prepare meals or be our personal assistants for jobs everyone has to do, but wishes someone else would do it. Maybe even robots would assist in medical care next?

By: Gorden Russell

Gorden Russell — Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:41:04 +0000

Okay, Andrew McAfee shows us curves where we see that the number of employed people just don’t catch up. So what happens to all the people who fall off the curve? He didn’t mention how they were to get by. Why isn’t anybody talking about levying Unemployment Insurance taxes and Social Security taxes on the droids that take jobs away from people forever? When these jobs go, they don’t come back. Somebody’s got to start talking about making Unemployment Benefits last until retirement age. Something has got to be done to save all of these people from the three vices of Voltaire that Andrew McAfee quoted.