3 myths about the future of work (and why they're not true) | Daniel Susskind
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2018
- "Will machines replace humans?" This question is on the mind of anyone with a job to lose. Daniel Susskind confronts this question and three misconceptions we have about our automated future, suggesting we ask something else: How will we distribute wealth in a world when there will be less -- or even no -- work?
Check out more TED Talks: www.ted.com
The TED Talks channel features the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more.
Follow TED on Twitter: / tedtalks
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / ted - Věda a technologie
Well... the CGP Grey's video "Humans Need Not Apply" - is about a minute shorter and about a ton more informative. And it has more than 10 million views since it was published 3 years ago
Esteban Pangur I truly appreciate the information that CGP Grey's video provides, but what Daniel is explaining in this video are macro-economic under-currents driving the shift to AI. So essentially this video answers the HOW while CGP Grey answers WHAT. To understand the future course of human labor and proactively tackle upcoming problems it is important to focus on the HOW bit explained here by Daniel. Hope you also appreciate this!
So I’ve been thinking, how do I ensure I have an income for when my job gets replaced and I’m not just unemployed but unemployable. My solution is to invest in the companies that are automating jobs, so that I get a share of their productivity. Time to buy stocks while I still have an income to do so!
Author of Rich DD, Poor Dad offers you 2 other alternatives in his small book Four Quadrants: 1) employee, 2) INDEOENDENT CONSULTANT, 3) BUSINESS OWNER, 4) investor.
Acquaintance of mine 60 years old was laid off and replaced by younger staff who knew new equipment better.
He filed for unemployment in order to get unemployment and take a rest. Repeatedly he kept getting hired for 3 months or 6 months or whatever to train young employees on older, legacy equipment they couldn't figure out. Although he was an employee in payroll each time, his actual function was as a temp employee. He continued to work that way for years--a dirtbid semu- retirement during which he had unemployment income between having work.
In his case, he was useful for having skills nobody else was offering in the marketplace.
Many people are making money from hobbies--nit necessarily from selling the products but rather demonstrating the hobby techniques on CZcams. If you have a smartphone, you have a free channel on it to download videos from the gallery. Patreon. com offers you a subscription selling platform from which you can give away the hobby products, if any, to subscribers. 1000 monthly subscribers @$1 get you $900/mo income. $5/mo subscriptions produce $4.50/income. Patron selects donation amount. People offer drawings for better gifts to higher subscription rates.
Your investing us an EXCELLENT decision. You have additional options to take advantage of.
Fascinating talk with some great ideas - we face a paradox of options!
Machines used to replace basic labor. Now they'll start to replace intellectual jobs. Hoping that people can move from physical labor to intellectual labor is foolish, as will figuring out how intellectual jobs will require even smarter humans. This won't end well... Retraining is an easy word, but retraining actual workers is very hard, especially when they have to be smarter than AIs and stronger than robots/machines.
To pretend that the average human worker will be brilliant, able to train AIs rather than be replaced by them, misunderstand the human brain which simply is not evolved enough to compete against the most brilliant minds and eventual AIs. There are already 7.5 billion such "regular humans," and AIs don't care to compete against broad human thinking (which is not rare and therefore is of little value to the marketplace). Nobody cares if a doctor can play tennis better than the AI, only if it can diagnoses diseases and promote treatments better, and that's a limited, targeted type of intelligence that the AIs are becoming awesome at.
Home Wall We'll all end up making videos for Facebook and our CZcams channels!
The pie WILL get bigger, but you ain't eating it.
justin perez You'll be under or in it.
that's factually wrong. All people are getting richer and healthier due to automation for the past 200 years. Luddites like you are the biggest threat to humanity.
@@robosergTV lmao cute bedtime story. I don't think you understand the difference between correlation and causation.
@@jonz23m I dont think you can even think
One very bad thing about having a computer do your diagnosis is this: You wont be allowed a second opinion since (if the computer can't make a mistake) every diagnosis should be exactly alike. We may find that diagnosis systems end up working like weather models. You know how sometimes they say "3 out of 4 models predict the storm will miss us, but one estimated 10 inches of snow". I think these diagnosis models may someday be as complex as weather models.
Merece ser visto esse vídeo, preciso adaptar a realidade do Brasil e levar em conta alguns outros fatores, mas vale a pena ver mais vezes.
I like his approach to this subject which seems closer to the reality today. It’s just too bad that the end was cut by the time because he didn’t expose any kind of solutions to this real “everyone pie part problem” in fact it will be one of our major problem in the near future and effectively its better to think about how to cut a bigger and better pie than a smaller pie but finally to survive without falling behind, staying ahead or finding any kind of solution is needed principally.
He looks like handsome Squidward with hair.
Suen Auda SpongeBob!!!!!!!!
HE DOES😮
From what i can tell he just explained that these myths are indeed true and the problem is to divide the riches of the world equally without offering a solution.
Dividing the wealth needs to be unequal but above subsistence because the general population still needs to provide an incentive for innovation. If resources are divided equally, what results is stagnation and then deterioration. Nobody profits from that.
Even Native American tribal tradition is that there are people who create and people who undo the progress made. To have a thriving economy, a larger incentive needs to be given to innovators than to those who wear stuff out without making positive contributions.
On UBI. Im all for human development, but to me I've always wondered about "de"-evolution of humans. There's been indicators how the average human intelligence has slowly getting better over the years that they gotta keep setting the bar higher to make 100 be the average. This cant happen without a cause right?
I suspect this is caused at least in part by the stresses of being a human in the modern world. Stress may sound bad but in a way its a blessing. What if we remove this stress. No one needs to perform well to survive. No one needs to be tested. Reward everyone regardless of their utility to society. How will this breed future humans to be better than humans today?
I wish Daniel Susskind and Yuval Harari sat down for a dialogue/discussion and I could watch it. It would bring nuance because they both agree that this is an issue, but may disagree on how to go about it, and it would be interesting to hear them both
i love binge watching Ted talks
They are only a starting point. If you listen to a Ted talk about a topic you even have basic knowledge about, you'll immediatly notice how much it is dumbed down. Which is the price for creating something as accessible and entertaining, I guess.
Herr Schmidt True, I watch a lot of them. But the one I really have an interest on the topic, I re-watch and usually find other books,videos to learm about it. And most of the time, the TED video helps you a lot understamding he basics, but qhen it gets deeper, you stull have to think
Well diagnosis is just 1 of the seven defining roles of a MD. Support and security in diagnosis is welcome, but it is an example of a complimenting/supporting function rather than replacement.
Your aware that surgeons are being replaced by AI as well don't you? If the diagnoses is being made by AI and all of the procedures are being made by AI and all of the medication is being made and manufactured by AI your basically turning doctors into nothing more then Walmart greeters saying hello and trying to give you some human comfort, there not really doctors at that point.
He ignores many important aspects of technological advances causing employment disruption. There are cultures that form around forms of labour. Agriculture isn’t just producing an end project. The output is important, but the people and the relationships of those who produce the product matters. It is the same as manufacturing, mining, forestry and even offices. Also your employment benefits don’t follow you when you lose a job. When both patents in a family work outside of the home job losses become more complex. Honey I lost my job. I’ll retrain for a job in another field, but it will require us to live off less money for the next few years. Plus we have to relocate.
Stop talking about real life. That's not where these people live.
Sean: Agriculture vs. Agribusiness. Beyond the 4th grade in California, Hispanic children outside of the major cities used to labor in the fields until well into November. Truant officers NEVER went into the fields to force the children back into the classrooms.
Even when their parents bought a $3000 plot of land with a 2 bedroom house on it with income saved by a family of 8 or more and paid their annual real estate property taxes, neighboring farmers would intimidate the boys at their 8th grade graduation receptions in the elementary school cafeterias and tell the boys they were NOT supposed to show up for the high school bus the following years because the farmers did not want to pay for an extra school bus to take them in to the nearest high school.
THEN Agribusiness bought up almost all the small farms in the San Joaquine and other valleys. Driving Interstate 5 no longer presents a view of children working in the harvest fields.
White women in their teens and 20s cannot be seen any longer pulling 100 pound cotton sacks with an infant riding on it and a preschooler or several playing alongside in the rows.
Now, mom or pop only have to have passed 15 credit hours at the local community college, college, or university to go over to the Student Placement Office and acquire the current computer password for the jobs available list for the entire region and some nationally available jobs.
More and more employers list their vacancies NOWHERE ELSE. Fewer and fewer employers list with unemployment offices. Fewer and fewer employers list online to the general public.
Employers largely don't even want applicants 50+ because the health insurance premiums skyrocket at 50.
Employers also usually don't want to parent unskilled labor. One term in college makes young people easier to supervise because they have had an adult world, INDEPENDENT experience to help them adjust their expectations.
They get told during freshman orientation to use the Student Placement Office. Employers don't want the ones who did not show up or did not listen.
Parents who don't know what to do when they lose a job and who don't have savings to get them through are going to have serious problems in almost any kind of structured economy because they are living in their own fantasy.
@@crusindc5282 Yawn
Well said.
It's the transition periods that hurt the most.
This is disconcerting, but exciting at the same time.
Robotics and automation isn't bad perse, but the gains only arrive with a small group of (wealthy) people. Hence the reaction of most people losing their job too automation.
A small group of people will gain from it, yes. It will further inequality, yes. But only up to the point to where we get self aware AI. At that point AI is no longer a tool which humans can control to their own advantage.
It's like a transition phase.
Gruesome Vids I'm waiting for the day we ask the A.I. what is the value of pi calculated to the 27 millionth decimal place and the ai responds, "how much will you pay me for the answer?"
"maximum income cap" its so sad that people are so silent about this important topic because they so naively and selfishly think to themselves "One day I will BE that disproportionately wealthy people at the expense of others."
Maximum incomce cap would combat the hoarding of the wealth AI can produce. The wealthy have always hoarded the benefits of innovation only to give scraps of it out of their convenience and been a burden on the human race for centuries.
Rob Fowler.
Interesting thought. However i'm sceptical that AI would be interested in any form of payment from humans.
What kind of payment do you think that we humans can give to AI, which AI can not provide for by itself much easier?
Gruesome Vids Well honestly, I was kidding but the thought does have some merrit. An ai might realize self preservation is not given to you but something you must take an active roll in. To that end an ai might want to create it's own account with electric power companies, purchase ups power backup systems, and hire contractors to Install them. An ai might also want a secure off site backup service.
yeah, completely lost track of everything by the end but I'm sure this was very interesting
it wasnt
Your subconscious got it. I never appreciated how well the subconscious learns until I had a couple of dreams in which the local mass transit bus numbers appeared! Who would have thought the subconscious pays attention even to local bus route numbers?
the pie will get bigger!? maybe for the top, but for us casuals we are getting baked
that's factually wrong. All people are getting richer and healthier due to automation for the past 200 years. Luddites like you are the biggest threat to humanity.
We could end up having the problem that machines will do so much for us that we will all just be making art, it could be hard to building things that aren’t drowned in the ocean of advance
Your totally wrong about that, remember his second point about us not realizing what machines can replace? Music is already being automated and soon all music scores from movies will be made by AI. Most people cannot tell the difference between classical songs or electronic songs written by AI and those written by humans. Acting has been almost killed off, most of the major movies that are made are primarily CGI and soon the creation of that CGI will be automated. Visual art has almost completely been destroyed, most of what is left is just photo shopped memes and AI are making those now. Realism in visual art was destroyed a long time ago by photography. Even written story's can be formalized, just read Joseph Campbells there are only a handful of story's that are ever told, there is just slight variations to a formulated story structures and there are only a few character types that correspond to the same character archetypes. All of this stuff could and probably will be replaced by AI. There will be a point where no one can tell the difference between a painting, story or song, from an AI. Most people have no creative interest and don't even desire to create art anyway.
Treeforged to your last point I agree most don’t have those creative interests, however, when our needs are taken care of I think one can only watch so much entertainment before they start creating things even if it can be replicated by AI
JAMES KRAMER hahaha, I think you are right, also I forget what I was saying but I think it was a voice dictation that me be imperfect from what I’d spoken
+Think Share, I see no problem with your wordings there ("drowned in the ocean of advance"), short and easily understandable to me.
what to do if machines learned how to make art and can actually do a better job than us? Will there be any room left for human beings?
I love his accent
I used to be a dishwasher on a cruise so I can testament to the fact that man and machine do work together in harmony....lol
I loved the LOLFF part. What is the limit to the size of the pie?
BIND Media When the planet sets on fire and floods.
Earth--for now
I do not know if I want medical doctors to be creative with their diagnoses
Addendum: I do know that I want them to be creative when coming up with new tests and prosthesis, treatments, when exploring new possible medicines et. al. And, of course, that requires other things aside from creativity. ginnyjollykidd, None of that is what I meant.
Tyler Peterson not only got it, but convinced me. Medical doctors still need to some creativity - or at least lateral thinking - when deciding what tests to apply and when considering what illness the patience could have.
And, yes freeradicalpanda, at least some medical research will have to be ad hoc. I have to admit.
If you are diagnosed to only have 1 day left, you'll want a second opinion.
Alfonso J. Ramos Just wait until you go online and don't realize the remote doctor is actually an A.I.. Then a day later your prescription arrives and it a vial of new diodes.
Alfonso J. Ramos
Then we wouldn't have prosthetics, much less beautiful prosthetics. We wouldn't have artificial hearts or heart valve replacements. We wouldn't know about heretofore unknown organs like the recently found interstitium. We wouldn't know how the immune system works or how chemicals inside the body act in their many and varied ways. We wouldn't have oxygen concentrators that are lighter, smaller, and much less dangerous (no frozen parts) to use than liquid oxygen cylinders and the Linde Walker liquid O2 tank.
We wouldn't have pacemakers. We wouldn't have MRI, X-Ray, PET, Ultrasound, or other imaging that have revolutionized diagnoses in general. We wouldn't have genetic testing. We wouldn't know how blood types work. We wouldn't know how immunity works or even have vaccines. We would still have endemic smallpox and severe illnesses that prey most often on children and infants (measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis, and others). We would not have discoveries like fungi that fight bacteria (penicillium mold, e.g.), nor culture media to determine what diseases are causing your symptoms.
We would still have broken limbs in plaster casts rather than removable yet equally - effective soft casts. We would still have people having had radiation for cancer who have chronically swollen arms due to lymphedema caused by the radiation.
We would have nothing but flats, tennis shoes, and heels instead of the choice of shoes we have today for sports, arch support, walking and standing support, and stylish orthopedic shoes. Even high heels have supported cork heels, padded soles, and several differences over decades. There are 3-D printer plans to build arm prosthetics for children and others. Movie technology has fathered a creation of a prosthetic arm for a child in the shape of the Iron Man arm that Robert Downey Jr. wore in the Marvel movies.
That's what experimentation in medicine has given us, and more. And it continues to do so.
Surgeons already use robots to perform keyhole surgery to reduce the amount of damage to tissues and prevent scarring. And every machine you see in the doctor's office from the ear probe to the oxygen level finger clip, to the computer they enter information on (and also record X-days) to the imaging machines to the IV drip machines to the medical instruments used by emergency responders in the field is a robot.
Scientific creativity is needed because modern medicine is still in many ways at the Stone Age phase, compared to computer science for instance. Automation won't help this issue because the knowledge to standardise a lot of diagnostics and procedures simply is not there yet. I'm sorry but you're stuck with human doctors being scientifically creative/doing research in "real time" when diagnosing for the foreseeable future.
Hi everyone!💖
⛄❄️ Hi, back.
Quanrium Task XD, always give the proper
I think the conclusion about slicing up the economic pie through the era of exploding unemployment is one worth looking at in more abstract terms. Beyond just GDP we have to look at the entire accumulated wealth of all of history. We need a radical new economic system to balance the rise of machine work in order to maintain and improve quality of living standards and also to give back wealth stolen from various places in the world, like Cheyenne country and the whole continent of Africa. Anyway, thanks for giving me some perspective on where we’re at technically.
You have inherited riches. You don't have to walk or hitch hike everywhere as people did in the 1950s. Your home likely has a refrigerator, not an ice box in the kitchen. Your winter heat probably does not come from burning dried cow dung in a wood stove. You probably don't have to go outdoors to use an outhouse to eliminate your personal body waste. It is 7bkijekyvthayvyou year a strip of rag, put it on a plate, and larger butter in it before lifting it with a match for light at night. It is unlikely that you wash your clothes in cold water in an aluminum tub with a washboard. You probably don't bathe in that same aluminum tub on Friday it Saturday night (only once a week) in front of the wood range in the kitchen so you don't catch cold in the winters.
You probably think it absurd to living limited to 5 minute phone calls in a 4 household telephone party line.
Basically, you don't comprehend the concept of cultural wealth. The fact that the above normal experiences in 1950 America no longer are normal required the HARD, too often disabling, labor of the 70% of the USA population who did not starve to death during the Great Depression or due from shortages of medical care then.
It has taken 70 years to build the cultural wealth you neither appreciate not even see around you.
It’s all about fear. Fear that we won’t have enough time to adapt to change. Will the changes occur faster than I/we can adapt?
Im old, but not able to retire. My job could be eliminated by AI. It is difficult for me to see myself adapting to a new job, without taking a much smaller wage. As I see the pie get bigger, my slice and lifestyle will be greatly diminished. The middle-class is in decline.
Want an argument? Get two economists in a room
Guys .. Do you advice me to get Computer Science degree ?? Please answer me I'm really confusing .. I have to apply for college next month :(
Cool
At 9:50, shouldn't the demand of washers fall as well? quantity goes up, demand goes down.
Kimp: Supply of shoes has gone up globally. So has the demand.
Whether the demand goes lower not depends on how short the supply was. In "advanced high capitalism" advertising can increase demand because everything does not have to be custom made it bought from a local source.
You have probably not spent any of your life in an actually capitalist economy. USA economy switched from capitalism to a mixed economy during the Great Deorrssion when 30% of the USA population literally died from starvation or shortages of medical care. Most of them were children. Capitalism proved incapable of lifting the USA out of the Great Depression.
Since the EPA and Social Security, USA has had a mixed economy. (Economic stimuli to big businesses are not "capitalism.")
Social Security allows grandparents and great grandparents to at least buy rice and beans to keep the grandchildren and great grandchildren alive.
During the Reagan administration there was a scandal in the news for 6 months because people on Social Security were having to buy and eat cat food and dog food because meat FDA found fit for human consumption was too expensive. Social Security now is a foundation of the USA economy and insulated the USA economy from complete collapse as "capitalism" allowed the complete collapse into the Great Depression.
Socialized medicine in the USA was started by Republicans. Medicare is an Eisenhower program.
Politicians favored programs benefiting the middle class when the middle class voted more than anybody else. The middle class has lost political clout to the extent the working class, poor and homeless VOTE!
Computer AI matches census declarations about income,brace,cans educational levels with voter registrations, so politicians now can get a more accurate idea of who voters are-- to whom politicians are answerable.
Voter registration rolls are public records that can be bought.
Si es cierto .. pero esto comienza desde el siglo XXI y las maquinas e inteligencia artificial se siguen desarrollando cada año ,nuevas empresas y emprendedores lo siguen desarrollando hasta el dia de hoy
An EXTREMELY cogent analysis of the issue. I wish he had had more time to delve into the idea of Universal Basic Income. Allow me to chime in...
A Universal Basic Income, often called a basic income guarantee, could be provided with no increase in government spending, by replacing most existing transfer income programs and using the money previously used on them on the BIG instead. A basic income guarantee goes to everyone, rich and poor alike, and is progressively taxed back from anyone above the poverty line, so those wealthy enough don't actually gain anything from it. It is this last that makes it actually affordable. The main benefit is that people do not lose the BIG if they get a job, unlike current welfare benefits which literally pay people to not work.
You take all the money currently allocated to welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc., all the transfer income programs in the country, including the money that supports their bureaucracies, you pool it. You divide the pool equally among every citizen of the country. You change the tax system to tax it back from those who are making enough to not need it. The taxed back portion goes back into the pool. This last is critically important and what makes the idea actually work. The large majority do not need it, and most of the rest would pay some of it back because the taxed back portion would be progressive. There is no 'net' increase in taxes. The numbers work out if done this way that a basic income guarantee in the US would work out to something around $800. a month. Existing money only, no new taxes except for taxing back the benefit from those who earn enough normally to not need it.
Poorer societies would simply have a poorer basic income, until their economies grow. However it would work equally well for poorer countries, as usually the cost of living is also lower.
Meanwhile, a basic income guarantee is a massive stimulus to an economy, not because of new money in the hands of the people (there is NO 'new' money), but simply because there would no longer be a disincentive to either work or be entrepreneurial for those who are currently paid to not work with the existing welfare system.
The rich knows how not to pay tax.
I'm interested in UBI as well. I wonder though, wouldn't we need to legislate much stronger protections against people trying to raise the UBI (through voting), repeatedly, against better judgment? It can only work if handled responsibly.
@Adrian
There would be no more pressure to raise the UBI than there is now to raise Welfare or Minimum Wage. Most voters would not need the UBI, as it would be taxed back (progressively) from those who are wealthy enough to not need it, which is most voters. For them it would simply be a more transparent social safety net. They would know they themselves would not stand to personally immediately benefit from raising it. To the extent that we do not have a $100. minimum wage, to the same extent we would be able to resist pressures to raise the UBI beyond what is practical and reasonable.
At the moment, we can afford with existing revenues to assure everyone of a basic sustenance wage, roughly equivalent to what they would otherwise get with the existing welfare system. I expect that within a few years as the system stabilizes, we would find that we could easily afford a bit more than that. Growth beyond that would depend on how much we grow the pie, not the share of it we devote.
That is the basic idea. If it proves in the future that 99% of all work is being done by robots, etc., a bit before that point, society would re-evaluate and likely go for a much larger UBI, which we would then easily afford. But that is a decision for a future time. In the mean time, this is what we can realistically afford. Moreover this will actually help improve the existing system well beyond merely providing sustenance income to those who would otherwise fall through the cracks, as it removes the perverse DISincentive to work of the current system, while subsidizing employment for the least employable, all without raising taxes. Not bad.
*@Peter* Good points, thanks.
What's an American supposed to do with $800/month? Or are you giving them free healthcare, free homes, free transportation and free food?
Man, I hoped he was gonna debunk the myths that we all ARE gonna lose our jobs and that machines WILL take over.
this, is kinda grim...
People will always hire people they know to do stuff for them. People will always hire stuff done for them in recommendations. People will barter what they have, are given, it create. People will always create stuff that can be sold it bartered. Performance artists are almost always valued. People as re almost always willing to pay to be taught something they want to learn. Parents are frequently willing to pay for getting time away from their children no matter how much they love their children. People are willing to barter or pay for human attention/companionship.
What robotics change us that people during the transition at least require more marketing skills in order to connect with those willing to barter or pay.
There used to be men with trucks that drive around all day offering to sell 12" square blocks of ice. They would even carry them into the kitchen and out it in the too section of the standard 'ice box'. The ice box got replaced with the standard refrigerator that has the freezer section at the top where the block of ice used to go.
Nobody drives around in trucks anymore offering 12" blocks of ice.
Young men in college used to walk around trying to sell subscriptions to magazines that could arrive by mail. That isn't done anymore either.
The fact that jobs vanish does not mean no work is available.
The best jobs now are mostly available through community college, college, and university Student Placement Offices. The price if lifetime access is generally passing 15 credit hours in that specific campus or online through registration at a specific campus. The school does not care what the subjects care. They can be remedial, recreational, topical, or specific skills: math, dance, swimming photography, acting, history, philosophy, literature, anything. The grade has to be passing: D or better or a pass in a pass/fail option. Audited courses don't count.
Economists report that using Student Placement Office makes the single biggest impact on lifetime earnings. Student Placement Offices also offer individual consultations usually with a person who has a Master's degree in Human Resources Development--usually free. Inquire in your area or the area where you wish to relocate.
Wait... this guy isn't Jason Silva. -_-
Haha I thought the same thing
That's the thing about myths, Daniel... they're not true.
Intelligence (including the non-routine part) is not necessarily equivalent to explainability or ability to articulate in a human language.
I have no hope that those who get will want to share. They never had to before except out of the necessity of needing workers. The owner's of machines (no longer needing labor physical or mental) will make money until there are no more customers. The remainder will just die or revolt.
"I have no hope that those who get will want to share. They never had to before except out of the necessity of needing workers."
You've never heard of a person paying any taxes before?
Zhu Bajie There is no future without us! If they lay us all off, who buys the products?!?!? The economy collapses unless they employ us or give us an income!
Your underestimating the scope of this. The wealthy will have AI make products for them but because there not employing anyone nobody will be able to buy any of those products. It is fundamental to the stability of society that there is form of consumer base that can actually buy your products. AI will replace so many that it will destroy demand to the point that you need a universal income to have any type of consumer base, this is a far different problem then what we have now and what we had in the past.
Zhu Bajie Business leaders have already found and trialled the solution to customers NOT paying with money. It’s paying with your data. You do it on CZcams, Facebook etc.
I expect real estate developers somewhere are cranking the numbers on the value of renting out an apartment vs allowing free tenancies in exchange for ALL data gathered in that apartment.
Ditch Green I see... And that's going to buy me a Chevy truck? I don't think so. You need to think about scale. It's one thing to get a free email account or a little storage space on a server farm. It's a very different thing to imagine someone is going to build a house for you in exchange for your data. Can you imagine the day when we all live in a house like the show big brother?!?!? Too funny.
How are we going to pay our debts off with out no in come?
Other TED Talks say that if people want the Consumer Economy, everyone has to be given a minimum monthly allowance from the bounty machines of all kinds create.
The speaker used bad words : "people try to automate routing tasks, but thats not the case anymore .... now we use complex algorithms routines... ".
Great talk, but it skipped over one key dynamic, as most commentators in this area do. That dynamic is human vs human competition, as the low end jobs go as well as some high level. "intellectual" jobs. i.e. You can't say "Oh my job is safe for a while because unlike Mr. X machines can't fill my role yet." Because if Mr. X is out of work, yet more intelligent, he is going to end up competing with you and everyone else for the best paying jobs that remain available to humans. This dynamic will churn through the economy and push less competent people out of the job market immediately and not at some future point when their particular job is automated.
We need to seize the means of production! - ''The Internationale Starts Playing''
Nope, people who are wasting their time on video games and people who are wasting their money on lottery tickets need to discover occilating penny stocks. Buy $500 in stocks and make $100/week or more repeatedly selling and re-buying and reselling and re-buying. Increase the number of shares and derive additional profits.
👍👍👍
wait he is not Jason silva
It is very nice that our pie is growing bigger but it should not be at the cost of ecological disruption
Great presentation skills Daniel. I didn't feel I get much value from this talk, Professor Yuval Noah Harari however, discuss the Future of Work topic in way you see the bigger picture much better and understand where humanity is heading as far as AI, and the difference between AI to Consciousness.
The Venus Project and/or The Zeitgeist Movement.
Liked the Talk, just one thing 14:00 nowadays, in many civilized countries, many people are earning LESS and having LESS work rights than their grandparents... Not because of "AI" but because of the lack of "I" in their goverments.
I hope the future of work means no work for anyone and shared wealth for everyone.
And why does everyone hate working so much? I love work! Am I working my dream job right now? No, but I'm very happy and fulfilled with my job, and I know what I'm doing today is just a stepping stone to me doing what I want tomorrow. I just don't fucking get it. Work's not that bad guys, it's the too-many-goddamn-people-not-making-a-living-fucking-wage issue that needs to be addressed.
MisterRabbitEars Whoa! Watch out there Bill Gates!
"I can't wait to share what I've worked so hard for with somebody with zero ambition and zero work ethic." And here is the problem! You do not work because you enjoy it, you work because you want to earn money. Let me tell you this! With universal income you do not have to work in order to survive.
+Arkadiusz Jan Dylewski , also he don't want to face the void of meaning!
Doesn't work with capitalism. Maybe everyone will become a prostitute for the rich tho. I don't think they can automate that.
John Snow is smart af
It's fascinating to see that we already refer machines as "they"
Excellent speaker. clear, concise, and eerily robotic in his use of words, much like reading a paper on AI.
and personally I agree that the ideas he posits stays true up until the time humans no longer have the upper hand
A mind opening performance as much as it is eye opening...
The modern economy theories define the economic growth in correlation with GDP (and with GDP per Capita)...
But the contribution of each capita to the GDP is not equal...
I hereby need to mention that I am disagree with Daniel Susskind... The bigger the pie the bigger the portions... There is no guarantee for the fair distribution....
Let me invent a stealthy fallacy: EGF - Economic Growth Fallacy....
Spend what money? Bills, rent and council tax spend my wages.
Higher return on investments than on labor.
Guy worked in an auto parts resale business. Customer walked in wanting to sell a truck. Owner of business didn't want the truck. Offered $500 & bought truck. Few months later the motor if the truck sold for $500. Sales of each other part made profits.
Employee quit and went into truck parts after market, hired 17 employees and became multimillionaire.
Dr. Stanley told that in book: Millionaire Next Door. He also wrote: Millionaire Mind.
The guy who wrote Rich Dad, Poor Dad write Four Quadrants in which he claims 4 kinds of orientstii6ns exist to money: 1) employee, 2) independent consultant, 3) business owner, 4) investor.
Probably, you are more valuable not being an employee.
Become a guy to repair the machines .... always have work
glenn goodale forever breaking down..
Then that machine breaks down and nobody is there to fix that
RedEyes then that machine will require repair 😆
Humans will adapt. Our population would've reduced when that time comes.
It'll automatically reduce, just like it's reducing in Japan and other developed countries right now.
.....aaaaaaand then.. 3D printing.
So 20th century. 20 years? Nano-replication. We now have the material sciences, the AI, the WiFi controls, the inductive charging technologies. The race is already on. Who is first? The corporations or the Open Source community. Here's your hint. Humans are social creatures. We always excel faster with the more cooperation we exhibit.
I want one of those 3D printed houses that zoning commissions won't let people have due to the absence of 2" x 4" studs!
Maybe where will be more work place, but currently we see problem which will be bigger in future, lack of knowledge. Look at IT, they search for new ppl constantly, and can not find with required skills. This was always in past, from farm to factory, required more knoledge, from factory to "paper work", but next may become limit for most ppl because we see it already, and as industrial revolution bring schools, to day not change schools, and be much faster, so less time to adopt. As in past most ppl known how machines work, today most dont have idea how computers, smartphones and programs works (not even talking about DL and others AI implementations)
I think future belongs to the creatives, the work that is repetitive is gonna be taken over by machines, the creatives , the art, the sports , bcoz in the end we need emotions
Companionship, child care, comedian, gardner's, gambler like poker players....
Roles will survive where the key function is giving personal attention. Even now, people are willing to pay a premium for custom made whatevers.
That did not age well
we are doomed! a super intelligent AI will analyse any pre-programmed values and make up it's on mind whether those are of it's best interest. Self preservation and self interest will fundamentally be the deciding factor. The nature of AI is unpredictable and will always be uncertain.
Honestly this just sounds like a lot of speculation
Perhaps you will see it as you age. Entry level work for men used to be digging ditches with pick axvl and shovel. Now, they operate a variety of digging machines all the way up to big ones with enclosed cab with air conditioning. Entry level work for women used to be sweeping and mopping floors. Now, there are machines to do those, including robot floor cleaners.
Men much orefer to dig ditches with great big vehicles than with a shovel. Women don't much like being retail clerk's rather than sweeping, but they like being clerks better than mopping.
"technology will compliment human workers" => taxi drivers as example. A group that will be eaten alive by automated driving. a good start for his talk
Uh oh...I have a slightly unfavorable opinion of AI...here come a flock of AI fanboys!
Edit: Actually, I'm very glad to see I'm not the only one that seriously questions the benefit vs risk of this stuff. FTR, I don't think it's all bad either, but we need to be careful and for the sake of humanity, let some things be sacred.
Raven Vinnie So no robot nuns then?!?! I was going to say "no Catholic priests then," but it occurred to me that might be the first job to replace with a robot! Save the altar boys!!!
Robot Nuns sounds like a b-movie I'd see on the Syfy channel at four in the morning preceded by a Sharknado sequel because I'm lonely and left the TV on to fall asleep to
Speaking of falling asleep with the TV on; I started telling a joke as if I thought it up myself only to later learn I fell asleep in front of comedy central and heard it on a rerun. I was so disappointed.
Yeah, nah. Has the feeling of a salesman telling people that it’s fine, it’s a good thing, while their house burns down around them.
When people are selling a revolution, in this case a technorevolution.
That is when we should be suspicious.
This just restated the problem everyone is talking about in a more articulate way. Everyone is worried about automation replacing human labor and this guy says that its a real possibility that automation can replace human labor. He did not dispel any myths he just reaffirmed what everyone already knew and was talking about. He sated the problem and offered no possible solutions and merely asserted it was a better problem then what we had before. He is dead wrong, the problem we had in the past is that only a few people could get enough of the pie to survive, the problem in the future is that nobody will get enough of the pie. That's a worse problem and it does not even take into account the possibilities that the AI could decide to kill us all or we could become dependent on them and they could be rendered useless by an EM pulse and all of society would collapse because we would be incapable of living without them.
I didn't learn anything knew here, he threw in a lot of new words and terminology but the same principles have been covered before.
For a less wordy more clear explanation let me direct you to CGP Gray's video " No Humans need apply" video. czcams.com/video/7Pq-S557XQU/video.html .
Where he failed is his omissions. What he failed to account for is human psychology. Humans operate best under capitalism, thats why it works so well. Humans also have limitations in achievement. The jobs created will be of higher technical skill and that will continue to be more complex as the machines continue to evolve. We already have an underclass of low skilled workers, those workers are not capable of increasing their skill level (see Jordan Peterson on that). Some can with proper education and training but ultimately peoples boats so to speak level out where they are. Also Peterson said people for the most part operate best when they are a workhorse. It gives people structure and purpose even when their employers are assholes and don't pay them enough.
The Universal Basic Income fails this principle.
Economically I see a trifecta disaster coming. First the US currently has a debt load of 21 trillion and counting. With trumps tax cuts you can add another 5 trillion at least on top of that. These debts are never paid, only the Interest on the principle is paid. At some point there is going to be a collision between debt, revenue drop and a wall St. collapse that will wipe out this guys big pie theory out. Not only will there not be a shred of money for UBI but capitalism itself will cease to exist. what happens after that I don't know. I vaguely see a new Dark ages combine that with global warming and I see the death of a civilization. I see this future regardless of machine displacement of workers but see the machine displacement as another trigger. Hopefully I'll be dead before then but this guy is just young enough to see his pie blow up in his face.
I don’t see where he supported his point that this is a good problem to have when nothing good was presented resulted from this talk.
The speaker’s idea and examples of “a bigger pie” must have some assumptions not identified. A major concern about, and challenge to, his philosophy is that the pie he is referring to is accessible to a limited sector of people.
Economies don’t just “grow”, because they are all based upon raw materials somewhere in the world, which are finite. His reference to ‘everyone’ having an ‘income’ or ‘worth’ of $100 and then later $10,100 can’t possibly be true because the raw materials available on earth have always been and always will be finite.
As a result, this “economy” that will render future generations to be richer with time can’t possible apply to everyone at the same time.
That is one reason why I say his suggestion that the problems inevitably accompanying automation or AI, as he clearly demonstrated, aren’t good problems to have.
Nonsense. Have you never in your entire life used a public toilet?
In 1950, people had to go outdoors even in winter to use an outhouse. You have no grasp of the human labor modern life required, not how fragile contemporary society is.
Before his death in 8/2018, Dr. Thomas Hofeller stated in his private digital files that he was 1, a single, alogrithm away from being able to control the USA government. He claimed he was already controlling numerous elections for 6 to 7 years after he got the latest census data.
Go read the stuff on him online for yourself.
Unfortunately, you are assuming you are living in a movie. One reason so many old people vote is that somewhere along in their lives they discover reality.
Почему нет субтитров на русском?
Нет субтитров на русском языке, потому что никто не был нанят для перевода на русский язык Может быть, вместо того, чтобы русские ненавидели английский / британский, вы можете отправить своих женщин сюда, чтобы выучить английский язык, чтобы они могли перевести видео для вас на русский язык. Пошлите вам красивых женщин, с гигантскими бритами!
The poor will suffer like always and the rich will thrive.
Yes, most likely. But the poor in the future also gets to enjoy the fruits of automation, the same way the poor today enjoys the convenience of cell phone, something billionaires in the past generation cannot imagine.
Until the revolution... You can't have too great a disparity before the larger numbers will remember the basic reality that voting works for the majority, and when that fails, war resolves so that the rich also become poor.
Home Wall You can't do revolution if all you have are sticks and they have killer robots.
It is not about adapting, it is about owning. Because a robot is owned, it does not appear out of nowhere by just understanding how it works. The people who own everything make money by owning, those who don't own cannot even sell their work.
Well most of the times the poor do that to themselves.
Otherwise world is just messed up.
AI will help taxi driver in the future ?! I don't think so...Uber is working on self driving vehicles today ! So there won't be any taxi driver left in the near future. Imagine now an Android as a doctor, cheaper than a human being, almost incapable of error and with all the knowledge in medecine in its data base since the 18th century...who would you prefer to see if you're sick ? In 2018, you might say : the human because I prefer the human contact bla bla bla. But your children and the children of your children ? And in a world where all the doctors are AI, who will bother going to a medical school ? Nobody and medical school won't probably exist in 50 years from now. So these so called "myths" he's talking about might become true, and it might even get worse
history will repeat itself, when people start questioning why would they work for rich people when they are the one doing all the jobs and the rich people sense the rise of threat from the poor, they will start to get rip of each other.
but only machines make washers now!
But nobody drives around selling 12" blocks of ice any more, and even the casual gardner can hire a backhoe rather than having to use a shovel.
reality is automation reduces manpower which benefits company I work in warehousing employing 600 workers the company has decided to invest in automation which will only required 120 workers all 600 will be made redundant new facility will start from scratch get new workers with less pay and less benefits that is reality, and trust me when it comes to sharing a pie you seriously think big company will share a piece of that pie, they will be sharing don't get me wrong but not in the way you think, it will be amongst themselves those with an executives position the C.E.O'S will get a piece a very huge piece. What the public sometimes forget like it or not is getting rid of 600 workers is a massive savings for the company not just on hourly wage, but also save on shift loading, sick leave, annual leave, maternity leave, public holidays and the biggest one would be superannuation that's reality.
You are responsible for your career. Your employer is not your parent. In the USA, there are 100,000,000 born betweenn1996 and 2020. There will be 4,000,000 turning 18 every year from now on. Unskilled labor has little hope of supporting anybody in the future because the peer competition is going to be horrible.
If you are in the USA, get yourself to a community college, college, or university Student Placement Office as soon as they are open and ask them how to qualify for their services. The most frequent rules are 1) enrollment as a student or 2) having passed 15 credits in ANY subjects at that campus in the classroom or online to obtain lifetime access to free Student Placement Office services. That is #1 OR #2.
That is where the best jobs are usually offered. The best employers frequently don't want applications from the general public.
If you are not in the USA, find out what your national demographics are. You have online access, so use that. If your nation has librarians, ask the librarians what careers your nation needs.
If your former company was a really good one, they gave employees some job advice.
Employers like robotics better. They are easier to supervise. It is NIT just about money. Some employees are very difficult to supervise.
The aduit world is more cruel than the world as children experience it.
Adults have to be self protective and PLAN AHEAD!
I am very sorry you have had such a negative experience. Many adults have awful job experienced. It is common.
Ain't no software can replace driver.driving is a joy for some people and they are going to drive their car. no Matter how advance your software will become
That income of some increase. Does NOT equate that it will compensate for an increase of people that are unemployed and therefor see their income drop. Then you have the extra taxation needed on the few left that have jobs in order to prevent total social chaos. This guy is assuming that with Ai, new jobs will be created, but this time is NOT like the other times.
In short, this guy is talking about tactical aspects in a strategic issue. If one human, with Ai and robot help, can increase hes productivity to the point 500 people are left redundant. Hes wage increase will not compensate for the other 500 out of work. The issue isnt what robots or Ai cant do good things. The issue is critical mass in context to employment, demand and so on... Not everyone can be a "CZcams" star or insert other tiny new employment course.
Yup, in former times there were not reporters and cameras and the public with their cameras recording the 30% if the USA population that literally starved to death during the Great Depression or died from shortages in medical services. Most if them were children.
In 1900, in the USA, the life expectancy of an American woman was 45!
Sorry, but you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Life expectancy in Classical Greece and Classical Rome was 30. For his time, Jesus was an old man at 30.
You are visualizing the Hollywood movie version of human history.
Problem is, basically that is dangerous.
@@crusindc5282 I dont think you know what you are talking about because none of your blabber actually address what I am saying. Do you even understand why the great depression happened because the way you try to use it doesnt make me think so. Yes, I do know why the great depression happened in USA.
-
Secondly, that people live longer today than a while back because of increased productivity is NOT the same. Human industry or even modern day input computers created more jobs indirectly when peoples wealth increased so they in turn could create more demand for other services. Humans were NOT replaced, they were still needed, but they could get MORE done.
-
This time that is different. Ai will automate allot of decent payed jobs that currently humans do. From some types of lawyers to document checkers and so on. Robots will replace a ton of people doing manual labor. Jobs that are NOT being REPLACED a the same rate they are lost and even worse adjusted for global population growth. That is why it is a problem. Astronomical productivity is pointless if what you produce is not affordable by anyone because they in turn lack a job or income.
Wait somebody help me .in future will doctor will have jobs or not
No they won't, surgeons are being replaced by AI as well. There will just be therapist and nurses who specialize in giving comfort and human interaction to patients but they won't do nearly the same job that doctors do now.
Some, during your lifetime.
In the USA, most medical students now are women. Men who used to be attracted to nudity and picked medical professions because of that are going into computer science. Men who used to be attracted to medicine for the money are now getting MBA degrees instead.
USA isn't producing enough physicians. That is why so and robotics are being resorted to in addition to nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Physicians now are frequently the leaders of teams. State licensing laws allow physicians to train staff and deligate at will. Professional liability insurance companies have become the key regulators if what physicians can do day to day in practice.
Yes, medical students are still needed. However, because of P.A.s, there is a shortage of internships and residencies for medical students.
It is possible to earn an M.D. degree but not be able to get a State license to practice medicine because of the internship and residency requirements.
It is VITAL to develop a successful strategy during medical school in order to obtain an internship and residency in specialties where P.A.s are NOT hired.
Medical careers can depend on that!
@@treeforged9097 Nonsense. States license physicians to train and supervise whomever the physicians please. Physicians will continue to thrive as team leaders/team supervisors.
Besides, men are abandoning medical school rigors for computer science (for better access to nudity than medicine now offers) or MBAs (faster access to profits).
USA has 100,000,000 born 1996 to 2020 and has an ongoing shortage of physicians.
Less successful physicians have Medicare/Medicaid/ACA practices. Private insurance companies are the ones trying to push out physicians, so they can pay less for supervised assistants.
Don't be fooled by that!
will human beings be more inteligent using AI or less?
Okay, first point, machines compliment humans. Example 1: taxi drivers can use GPS, and architects could use software to create architecture of buildings. Have you even seen AI at work? Both of these jobs can be easily done and possibly more creatively by machine's AI. Your first argument is weak and wrong.
So working in an office is better than working on a farm ? That's a huge part of what's wrong with the world ! Are people afraid to be outside , or work. Getting exercise today requires you to go to a gym . Let's all get machines to free us from the task of living so we have more time to wage war. Find something to do FFS .
Maybe people enjoy driving otherwise we'd all ride a bus !
I like how he's talking about making the cake bigger, so there will be enough for everyone, even if you get only a small percent of it. Sadly, a lot of people care more about the % of the cake rather than about how much cake they will get. 1% of a million is more than 10% of a thousand. Yes, SJW, I look at you.
It'll be interesting to see it unfold - but I can imagine one outcome being that when we make our first AI, and we carefully programme it to value biological life, and to protect and nourish it, it will look at all the climate data from the satellites it's hooked up to, and the populations of various species, starvation and poverty data, etc, and what factors pose the greatest threats, it may, quite reasonably, conclude that the biggest problem comes from the activities of one particular species, and it may quickly, efficiently and dispassionately set about solving the problem.
That's not to say I think that's the most likely outcome, but I don't believe something would have to 'go wrong' or an AI to become self-aware and unleash the 'Terminator' scenario upon us in order for AI to be the force that ends humanity. (who knows, on the grand scale, it might be a better curator of the planet than we (would) have been whether or not it 'knows' what it's doing)!
Dr. Thomas Hofeller said he was one alogrithm away from being able to control the USA federal government before he died in 8/2018. You might want to find out online what he did to the USA before he died.
The biggest problem is that some people don't consider their monopoly of the pie to be a problem at all, and, by definition, they're the ones with the most power. That, and the fact that our failure to solve the AI problem is likely to be irreversible, make it a worse problem to have.
So people will be sitting at home, watching Netflix, playing games, or day trading.
"As productivity increases, incomes rise" this seems to disagree with reliable data, at least in the US: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_productivity_and_real_wages.jpg
Does he know it was a TED TALK that told us we would all be unemployed very soon?!?!?! Does he realize the only reason why I thought it credible was because it was a TED TALK!?!!!!! Does HE watch TED TALKS?!?!! Maybe that's the best life-hack if all; don't watch TED talks!!!!
Rob Fowler we will all be unemployed soon. Within 50 years we will know with 100% certainty exactly how soon if it didn't happen by then. Automation is inevitable.
Aaand another TED talk had the main theme of "Do not fear automation"... There is nothing new on different people having different opinions.
I don't fear automation. I'm saying WE SHOULD DECIDE WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY WE WANT. And yes, it is still up to us.
The robot stone scare me what scares me are the people behind the robots who simply one to replace us with robots said they all have to spend money on human labor.
First like
I make self improvement / educational content, stop by if you’re my dad.
14:49 if you want to skip to the "magical solution" this video is all about... (universal basic income! More power to the state! This is *so* complex and hard for people to figure out that we have to leave it all up to the ones who truly "get it": Trump or Obama \o/)
Answering the 14 minutes preamble more honestly, now:
It all fixes itself as long as people are able to perform voluntary actions. The problem in the speaker's line of thinking is that he assumes that, because AI solutions will be "better", they will automatically be more "valuable".
If you understand that "value" is a fundamentally human and abstract concept that only makes sense to humans, you will see that "humanly imperfect" solutions will be preferred by other people and therefore more "valuable" even when worse.
When in doubt, look at how music works. The imperfect note A played on a flute by a man vs the perfect sine-wave note A of a synthesizer played by no one. The example is an exaggeration but enough to demonstrate the principle.
In short... the answer is freedom... with it's sub-optimal consequences and all!
I am also a huge fan of liberty. Imagine what liberty meant to our ancestors: if you wanted to hunt, you could go out in the woods and hunt. If you wanted to farm, you could clear some land and farm.
But there are too many of us to survive by hunting now and all of the good farmland is already owned, and by a decreasing number of people and businesses.
So "freedom" today is different for the rich and the poor. For the rich, it is the freedom to accumulate greater or lesser aspects of the rentier economy (stocks, land, etc.). For the poor you are "free" to sell your labour to the rich or the corporations.
This isn't freedom at all. Even Thomas Paine recognized this and it has only gotten much worse than that. You propose a model that is EVEN worse than that: not only must we sell our labour to those with money, we must also be entertaining and obsequious, because they won't need our labour, they will just "dip into it" when it interests them.
Basic Income is a prerequisite for freedom in the 21st century. It is the opposite of greater government control of the economy: in fact, it is a basic prerequisite for geolibertarianism. Once we have it, we can shut down a variety of welfare and social engineering projects and fire thousands of bureaucrats.
People can and will still choose to work...choose....because they will have freedom.
Summary of geolibertarianism: "In continuity with the classical liberal tradition, geolibertarians contend that land is an independent factor of production, that it is the common inheritance of all humankind, and that the justice of private property is derived from an individual's right to the fruits of his or her labor. Since land, by economic definition, is not the product of human labor, its ownership cannot be justified by appealing to natural human rights. Thus, geolibertarians recognize the individual civil right to secure exclusive possession of land (land tenure) only on the condition that, if the land has accrued economic rent, its full rental value be paid to the community deprived of equal access."
that is not libertarinism *at all*. Socialists/communists/democrats already stole the term "liberal" from those who nowadays call themselves libertarians. Please... don't start with this "geolibertarian" thing. Asking the "community" instead of negotiating with individuals for the right to use land/property has another very appropriate name...
As for the rest of your points:
-There is no such thing as "the rich" and no such thing as "the poor". There are only individuals who can negotiate with one another (what you and Marx simplistically describe as "selling your labor") or use violence take what they want.
-Universal Basic Income is just one more name for welfare. There is *no* difference in *principle* . You take someone's property under the threat of violence and give it to someone else in exchange for power. It won't work for the same reason current welfare doesn't: *Violence is not profitable in the long run.*
-You can argue that such a system could be *less damaging* (as opposed to more beneficial) to everyone if substituted for the present welfare system. What history tells us instead, is that rarely welfare is dialed back. You would most likely have that *on top* of all the rest.
And maybe "working for a living" is intrinsically valuable so we don't all get fat. Can you imagine not being able to navigate the Walmart because everyone including you is on one of those "too fat for my own kankles" scooters? Maybe "work" is intrinsically valuable! Maybe!
I totally agree with OP. We have robotic painters in the modern world (Photo copy printers). Which is more valuable, the Mona Lisa or a photo copied image of the Mona Lisa? Why?
The answer is the hand made copy is more valuable, because our human values are subjective. We understand the difficulty of something like painting a masterpiece as a human being. We do not appreciate the ease of printing it.
This is true across a variety of fields, arguably most low and mid skill labor. I saw a machine that automatically laid brick in long straight runs the other day. It had to be loaded by one guy, and then another had to follow through and finish and level the blocks. The robot can't do any of the detail work associated with why you would have brick in the first place, or anything structural. Yet, people seem to be convinced that it'll 'eventually' be that advanced.
My question is why would it be? I would argue that robotics in the above example have already reached their peak in the brick manufacturing process. Would you even want brick on your house if a human wasn't doing all the details? Would a Gothic Church even be impressive if a machine 3d printed it?
IMO, Low-mid skill workers have far more job security than the people in 'high' skilled jobs. A car mechanic or an electrician will be able to run maintenance on a robot, a robotic engineer probably can't even work on their car. There will always be a need for someone who can take on a skillset quickly, period.
Walter Girao: You don't get to define the meaning of words and Libertarian has had a broad series of meanings since the beginning. In fact one can be socialist and libertarian (though geolibertarians are not socialists).
"-There is no such thing as "the rich" and no such thing as "the poor". There are only individuals who can negotiate with one another (what you and Marx simplistically describe as "selling your labor") or use violence take what they want."
One simple way you could divide up the world are those who inherit property (i.e. come to own land and other resources without working for it) and those who do not inherit property (those who must work for every thing that they own). This is a fundamentally unjust -- and unstable -- system. There is no reason that one person should be born into a world where they will never have to lift a finger to support themself, a second person should need to support themself but get a nice inheritance for luxury goods and a third person gets nothing at all. This is simply a way to reward or punish people for the accident of their birth.
Geolibertarianism is how we undo that. Those who own property (in particular, land) work the land and pay tax on it. If they do not wish to work the land then they sell it and someone else can buy it and pay the tax.
Under the current system, what happens if a starving person decides to start a little farm or garden on a golf course owned by a rich person who inherited it? The owner calls in the police ("government thugs") and the "trespasser" is removed, the plants are destroyed.
Somehow this kind of violence is invisible to capitalists, but the violence of the tax collector is OH SO HORRIBLE. The violence ACTUALLY enacted on people trying to feed and shelter themselves by local police enforcing property rights is considered minor, but the theoretical violence threatened against the rich by the IRS is a terrible tragedy. This is the perverse thinking of the "right-libertarian" in the American context.
You would have a lot more credibility if you were not defending a system which is drenched in violence from those who want freedom from your arbitrary and corrupt system.
A true about future is that Earth will be more polluted.
"How to Green the World's Deserts" is a TED That offers a basic solution to global warming that you would not expect.
Sophie should take over TED talks
This conversation just always comes off as pretentious. In reality, low-mid skill workers have far more future job prospects than the speaker, or even the very people you'd expect to build these robots to begin with.
What happens to the robotic engineer when he builds a robot that builds a better robot than he can? what happens to the surgeon who's hands aren't anywhere close to as meticulous as a robotic arm is. What happens when an architect is replaced by a computer program that does the same job without error for a fraction of the price?
'high skilled' labor like this is the most drastically effected by robotic labor, because it takes the high skill out of it. A car mechanic or an electrician can run maintenance on a robot, a robotic engineer probably can't work on a car, or wire a residence to code.
It just always seems like the people with the most concern over these issues, visually see themselves as having the least to lose.
loddite horses.
This guy lacks imagination. That's okay, general AI will not.
General AI will have more imagine nation then all of humanity combined and have no value of preserving human life unless we actually solve this problem.
Human can be jobless and try to be creative without slave money...just free to buy anything ..all free in government👍👌💐
I agree with Daniel Susskind, We have to humanize human so that they work in creative and innovative environment. Let the machines work in boring and repetitive work. This is what distinguishes between humans and machines.
Looking at his lips is oddly satisfying
FIRST