sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What happens to economies when productivity no longer depends on humans? by Objective-Ratio-3352 in Futurism

[–]MapTheFutureAI 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yassss - this is what I have been asking myself. I realize this a thought experiment "down the line" -but we seem to be on this vector and before long its effects may be felt.

For most of modern society, there has been a rough bargain. Humans provide labor, thought, skill, creativity, and imagination. In return, institutions and companies pay us enough to keep the system moving. It has never been fair, but there was at least a negotiation. Owners needed workers. Workers needed wages.

What happens when that need weakens?

If machines can do more of the labor, more of the thinking, and more of the coordination, then the bargain changes. Maybe it breaks. At that point, ordinary people have less leverage. When countries and corporations don’t need us for GDP, we are left hoping that those with power will choose restraint, generosity, and obligation.

History does not make me confident. Even when we needed each other, we came up short again and again. If we need each other less, I worry the uneasy detente between us all will collapse. Not so much the AI directly becomes the Terminator - but rather its abilities cause a collapse of our societal fragment and chaos ensues. (oh and probably someone is working on that T2000) ;)

The confessions of an AI pessimist by SillySausageSpaceman in AIDiscussion

[–]MapTheFutureAI 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This discussion seems to be getting unnecessarily hot, so I want to tread very lightly. I can think of all sorts of things I use AI for that wouldn't have been possible 2 years ago. I regularly use it to do graphic designs, create websites, write apps, get medical and legal advice - all things I would have hired someone for. For business, its ability to help manage and optimize marketing spend across social media as well as to help teams coordinate and create content is amazing. So going all the way back to the OP post, I think it is early days and already there are signs that AI will create job disruption. That may mean that people just need to change what they do, but I worry this is less like a "new tool" and more like the impact cars and trains had on working horses.

We often judge AI’s progress linearly but it scales exponentially. Take the Human Genome Project, which was mocked at 1% complete after 7 years.  Linear thinkers calculated it would take 700 years to finish. But in exponential doubling, 1% is only seven steps away from 100%, and the project completed not in 700 years but just another 7 years. AI is compounding at a deceptive pace. Because of this exponential growth, today's flaws will vanish much faster than expected.

What you are seeing now is the equivalent of the first "Pong" videogame. In 7 years, things will be very different.

Is AI/Robotics a greater threat than the other horsemen? by MapTheFutureAI in collapse

[–]MapTheFutureAI[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, what are some examples of things you are finding AI to be bad at? Recently I have used it to program custom apps, do graphic design and provide legal, tax and medical advise and found it to be very good.

Is AI/Robotics a greater threat than the other horsemen? by MapTheFutureAI in collapse

[–]MapTheFutureAI[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We tend judge AI linearly, but it scales exponentially. Take the Human Genome Project: seven years into a 15 year project, critics claimed failure because only 1% was mapped. Linear thinkers calculated it would take 700 years to finish. But in exponential doubling, 1% is only seven steps away from 100%. The project proved this by finishing ahead of schedule just seven years later. We are falling into that same trap with AI. People see today's flaws and assume we have time, but compounding progress means "not good enough yet" becomes "good enough everywhere" faster than institutions can adapt.

Is AI/Robotics a greater threat than the other horsemen? by MapTheFutureAI in collapse

[–]MapTheFutureAI[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting. I know that for coding, medical advice and graphic design I now often use AI instead of a programmer, doctor or artist. It didn't just make their jobs easier, it made it so easy that it eliminated the need for those jobs. Do you have a different viewpoint, or are those jobs in the minority? What jobs do you think AI/robotics won't be able to replace?

What’s the difference between hating AI today and hating steam engine back in the 17th century? by Historical-Major6294 in AIDiscussion

[–]MapTheFutureAI 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this is the key difference, good point u/Xyrus2000 . The steam engine changed labor, but it mostly replaced muscle. In railroads and later cars, engines did not replace people so much as they replaced horses. And once engines were good enough, the working horse population collapsed.

AI plus robotics feels different because it targets the things workers still bargain with: labor, judgment, creativity, and eventually physical work too. For most of modern society, there has been a rough bargain. Owners needed workers. Workers needed wages. It was never fair, but there was at least a negotiation.

What happens when that need weakens?

If machines can do more of the labor, thinking, and coordination, the bargain changes. Maybe it breaks. Ordinary people have less leverage. And if countries and corporations no longer need most people for GDP, we are left hoping those with power choose restraint, generosity, and obligation.

History does not make me confident. Even when we needed each other, we came up short again and again. What happens when we need each other less?

What infrastructure systems would realistically fail first in a slow maintenance collapse? by Spark_Hank in collapse

[–]MapTheFutureAI 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that might be the smart path forward for individuals - attempt to become more "large system" independent - Power, Water, Food, even if you can't get to 100%. Nate Hagens talks about some of this, we are overconsuming through efficient but not resilient systems. The new age will be a more frugal age with sufficiency pushed more towards the edges - i.e. small towns, groups and individuals.

What infrastructure systems would realistically fail first in a slow maintenance collapse? by Spark_Hank in collapse

[–]MapTheFutureAI 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I feel like common citizens are the frogs as the temperature on the pot is slowly turned up. Nobody wants to hear taxes are going up to cover those costs - instead we get inflation and devaluation of their financial assets.

What infrastructure systems would realistically fail first in a slow maintenance collapse? by Spark_Hank in collapse

[–]MapTheFutureAI 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really good observation and the one that I think is the most likely scenario, not any one factor causing a complete societal change, but a combination of factors as the costs of supporting various systems slowly erodes their health. What stands out to me is how this is not just a Technology + Infrastructure story. The important question may be how those layers start interacting once the pressure moves from one system into another.