Silicon Valley billionaires buy underground bunkers preparing for the apocalypse

WhiteMemento9

Tech entrepreneurs fearful artificial intelligence will displace so many jobs there will be a revolt against those responsible

The headline is sensationalist but I listened to a podcast recently in which one of the top hedge fund investors in silicone valley says even with increasing media coverage people outside of the industry have no idea what is coming.

ALTMAN: I think there’s a sense that technological job destruction is accelerating more than people outside of Silicon Valley realize. And I think this is mostly narrow applications of A.I., but it’s going happen for lots of other reasons. So every time we’ve had a major societal revolution of some sort — we had the Agricultural Revolution, we had the Industrial Revolution — where anytime you have a significant fraction of human jobs get eliminated in a relatively short period of time, eventually humans do figure out new things to do. But there’s quite a lot of disruption while they’re happening.

Oxford University, BoA, and Merrill Lynch all with similar assumptions that 47% of the workforce will lose their jobs to automation and AI in the coming decade.

Are people worried about the future of jobs or do they think we will find solutions to the coming problems?

gifted

It's Friday...prepare for the weekend....woo hoo

The_Valeyard

I for one welcome our AI overlords

Ferrari3600

Hence the importance of social protections...collective bargaining...trades unions, etc..all the things the reich wing trollboys on boards.ie sneer at.

Ronaldinho

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Hence the importance of social protections...collective bargaining...trades unions, etc..all the things the reich wing trollboys on boards.ie sneer at.

Collective bargaining and trade unions aren't going to cut it if we are to seriously deal with this.

Imho it will be the single biggest issue for my generation.

themagiconion

The exact future that Roddenberry talked about in star trek. The future is looking promising, bring it on. No more reliance on money, just better yourself will be the token of the day.

pedigree 6

eeguy

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Hence the importance of social protections...collective bargaining...trades unions, etc..all the things the reich wing trollboys on boards.ie sneer at.

When someone invents a machine to do your job are you really going to go on strike?

Taxi drivers in NY wrote a letter proposing a 50 year ban on autonomous cars, but there's no way anyone will listen to them.
Here's an interesting articles by Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2017/01/17/why-you-should-get-busy-adapting/#17d290d8e980

“It was bizarre reading some of the interview quotes, but I guess ignorance can be bliss,” the authors say. “People think their jobs are harder than they actually are. Often jobs actually consist of a set of repetitive actions that can be codified and done by a robot. This applies to many jobs currently considered high skill, like accountants, lawyers and researchers. There is report writing software now available that is practically flawless.”

Most people think it'll be decades before robots take their jobs. The people who build the robots say it's just a matter of years.

fly_agaric

themagiconion wrote: »

The exact future that Roddenberry talked about in star trek. The future is looking promising, bring it on.

Just fairly good, more "general" AI, smart robots and machines that can put humans out of a job is not enough to get to that future.
Unlimited energy (antimatter in Star Trek) and unlimited manufacturing capacity that can really be located anywhere (replicators in Star Trek) are also needed. Can't see either of those on the horizon for quite a while.
Anyway the way capitalism operates, aspects of human nature etc seem to make something more dystopian likely!

suicide_circus

To paraphrase Bill Burr, when the shıt hits the fan people are gonna start walking towards gated communities.

LeinsterDub

Some people would be better of accepting that death comes to us all and using their billions to improve the lifes of others

batistuta9

AI advancements & looking further ahead, the need to leave earth is going to require a massive ideological shift.
Something like a worldwide commune, money will be useless.

Well they let that happen?

Jurgen Klopp

A prepper bunker might be ok in natural disasters or a general civil war.

Wouldn't fancy my chances having tens of millions baying for my blood especially given a lot probably helped build the bunkers in the first place along with all the other vast experiences and know how to break in to it eventually.

themagiconion

fly_agaric wrote: »

Just fairly good, more "general" AI, smart robots and machines that can put humans out of a job is not enough to get to that future.
Unlimited energy (antimatter in Star Trek) and unlimited manufacturing capacity that can really be located anywhere (replicators in Star Trek) are also needed. Can't see either of those on the horizon for quite a while.
Anyway the way capitalism operates, aspects of human nature etc seem to make something more dystopian likely!

Ah of course, but it's the start right now. Eight years and they say the roll out of driverless cars and I'd say trucks will be out for the public and 8 years isn't that long of a time. And turning hydrogen into a metal is already on its way to help with the space program and it's advancing very fast also.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hydrogen-metal-revolution-technology-space-rockets-superconductor-harvard-university-a7548221.html

eeguy

themagiconion wrote: »

Ah of course, but it's the start right now. Eight years and they say the roll out of driverless cars and I'd say trucks will be out for the public and 8 years isn't that long of a time. And turning hydrogen into a metal is already on its way to help with the space program and it's advancing very fast also.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hydrogen-metal-revolution-technology-space-rockets-superconductor-harvard-university-a7548221.html

Link from the same article

Physicists might have made a mistake in claiming to have turned hydrogen into a metal, experts say

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hydrogen-metal-revolution-technology-truth-criticism-problems-discussion-a7549056.html

Jurgen Klopp

The sad thing is a lot of people think it's gonna be a future where people pursue the arts or their passion and all that jazz.

Unfortunately I'd be fairly certain without a revolution it will be a case of massive slums returning for those outta work.

People mention universal income and all that but if the work force is almost halved how are the remaining half to keep a nations services and infrastructure going through tax. Police and hospitals, etc. People are already squeezed, how will the remaining workers keep that going and also provide a universal income.

suicide_circus

The talk of a star trek style utopian future with no money in which we devote ourselves to life long learning is never supported by any definite road map. A mad max type scenario is far more likely imo.

Akrasia

Ai and automation could lead to a world of abundance for all, or it could lead to a Hellish dystopia where everyone is dirt poor except for a tiny cabal of trillionaires who own everything.

It depends on how much wealth redistribution there is. Right wing laissez-faire economics are obsolete.

eeguy

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

The sad thing is a lot of people think it's gonna be a future where people pursue the arts or their passion and all that jazz.

Unfortunately I'd be fairly certain without a revolution it will be a case of massive slums returning for those outta work.

People mention universal income and all that but if the work force is almost halved how are the remaining half to keep a nations services and infrastructure going through tax. Police and hospitals, etc. People are already squeezed, how will the remaining workers keep that going and also provide a universal income.

That's the million euro question. Can the government implement measures to offset the coming wave of automation before it actually hits? I highly doubt it.

There's not going to be an easy transition. People compare automation to the likes of the farm workers becoming factory workers during the agricultural revolution and say "Sure they'll just find jobs elsewhere".
The difference is that people who did routine work on farms, also did routine work in factories. Automation is perfect to replace people who do routine work, which in fairness, is most of us. If your job can be broken down into a set of repetitive tasks, then a computer can do it.

Here's a good TED talk calling on people with wealth to start using it for good.
"Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming"
https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocrats_the_pitchforks_are_coming

WhiteMemento9

Akrasia wrote: »

Ai and automation could lead to a world of abundance for all, or it could lead to a Hellish dystopia where everyone is dirt poor except for a tiny cabal of trillionaires who own everything.

It depends on how much wealth redistribution there is. Right wing laissez-faire economics are obsolete.

Some people would say we already live in that world when the world's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%.

Jurgen Klopp

eeguy wrote: »

That's the million euro question.

There's not going to be an easy transition. People compare automation to the likes of the farm workers becoming factory workers during the agricultural revolution and factory workers becoming service workers in the industrial revolution and say "Sure they'll just find jobs elsewhere".

The difference is that people who did routine work on farms, also did routine work in factories and routine work in services. Automation is perfect to replace people who do routine work, which in fairness, is most of us. If your job can be broken down into a set of repetitive tasks, then a computer can do it.

That's just it, when I hear people say people got new jobs after the industrial revolution it will be the same now.

Well back then nearly everything was manual, even with trains arriving people were needed in lots of other manual jobs. A very important thing to remember is women didn't work compared to today that's double the amount of jobs needs nowadays.

If 50% are laid off realistically how many jobs are gonna be available in maintaining AI devices maybe a couple percent if we are lucky.

Could very well be a case of it goes so badly AI is moot as there's such a break down it won't matter. Half get laid off the other half can't upkeep services and money and infrastructure collapse.

People keep saying it's stopping progress but I firmly believe unless there is a big change in society and the money system it may require severe restrictions on AI at a UN type level.

eeguy

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Some people would say we already live in that world when the world's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%.

In fairness, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet are on that list, two men who've pledged to give their entire fortunes to charity.
Gates has given $32 billion to charity in the past.
Zuckerburg and Ellison are part of the Giving Pledge, and pledged to give half their fortunes to charity.
Jeff Bezos is building a space company.

Also, their worth is derived from their stakes in hundreds of companies and ventures. The money isn't just resting in the account.

If your house is worth a million euro and you have a €100 in the bank, you can't live a millionaire lifestyle.

whatawaster81

Robots don't pay taxes. I'm sure they'll find something for us to do.

suicide_circus

Robot tax.

Tax the absolute shıt out of all AI and robots to pay for the social welfare of all the workers they put out of a job.

NIMAN

When I was younger I heard all this stuff before on Tomorrows World in the late 70s/early 80s, about how we would get to 2000 and robots would be doing everything for us.

Here we are 40 years later and we are all still working, paying taxes, same social issues exist now as did back then. You only have to look at old news reports, and see that society, for all its technological progress, still has not solved many basic issues.

I also think that in another 40 years we will still all be working, paying our taxes, worrying about things maybe we shouldn't worry about etc.

I mean do you honestly think that all the kids being born now will have no jobs to do when they get to 30, 40, 50? They will have.

Calibos

whatawaster81 wrote: »

Robots don't pay taxes. I'm sure they'll find something for us to do.

Nor buy the products they make or transport.

themagiconion

eeguy wrote: »

Link from the same article


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/hydrogen-metal-revolution-technology-truth-criticism-problems-discussion-a7549056.html

Good observation. I missed that one.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Hence the importance of social protections...collective bargaining...trades unions, etc..all the things the reich wing trollboys on boards.ie sneer at.

Social programmes need a tax base to support them.

No point in having a union when the industry is no more. Take the once mighty Projectionist Union in the USA for eg. They fought hard and long but couldn't save the profession from the advancement of technology.

WhiteMemento9

eeguy wrote: »

In fairness, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet are on that list, two men who've pledged to give their entire fortunes to charity.
Gates has given $32 billion to charity in the past.
Zuckerburg and Ellison are part of the Giving Pledge, and pledged to give half their fortunes to charity.
Jeff Bezos is building a space company.

Also, their worth is derived from their stakes in hundreds of companies and ventures. The money isn't just resting in the account.

If your house is worth a million euro and you have a €100 in the bank, you can't live a millionaire lifestyle.

I have major problems with how all that is reported but besides that a system shouldn't exist where the need arises for this to happen. How have we got a point that allows this to be the world in the first place? People like simple narratives and stories so we look at that top eight under the microscope and laud the good deeds of the few forgetting how it should never have happened in the first place and that if you extrapolate that out to the money vacuum at the top as a whole beyond those eight to lets say the top 10%, most of them are not going around giving money away but this narrative that you jump to in defense of this ridiculousness which betrays all the truth.

I think we are far too detached in the West from the reality of that 50%. They are living in a dystopian nightmare. We have become desensitised to that truth because of the over saturation of those numbers. People nearly roll there eyes at this stage when someone brings up those kinds of statistics. These are real people the same as me and you and everyone else. People should not forget that a large majority of them live in abject poverty to maintain our lifestyles by exploiting them in which we are all tacitly complicit to some degree.

eeguy

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I have major problems with how all that is reported but besides that a system shouldn't exist where the need arises for this to happen. How have we got a point that allows this to be the world in the first place? People like simple narratives and stories so we look at that top eight under the microscope and laud the good deeds of the few forgetting how it should never have happened in the first place and that if you extrapolate that out to the money vacuum at the top as a whole beyond those eight to lets say the top 10%, most of them are not going around giving money away but this narrative that you jump to in defense of this ridiculousness which betrays all the truth.

I don't think you really understand how this happened.
Jeff Bezos pays himself $80k a year, much less than most of the top brass in this country. Yet he's worth $65 billion.

He's worth that because he's built a huge multiplatform company that's one of the biggest employers in the US. It's not just Amazon shopping, but a hardware, software, cloud computing, robotics, AI and space company.

His worth is what some economist estimated that all these companies are worth if you wanted to buy them from Jeff. It's not like he's stolen $65 billion from people around the world. That money wouldn't magically appear in peoples pockets if he never started Amazon. It's more that he's created a business empire that's worth that.

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I think we are far too detached in the West from the reality of that 50%. They are living in a dystopian nightmare. We have become desensitised to that truth because of the over saturation of those numbers. People nearly roll there eyes at this stage when someone brings up those kinds of statistics. These are real people the same as me and you and everyone else. People should not forget that a large majority of them live in abject poverty to maintain our lifestyles by exploiting them in which we are all tacitly complicit to some degree.

You're 100% right, but to acknowledge that fact we'd have to drastically lower our own standards of living and no one wants to do that. Say if you gave people the option: Either buy an iPhone for €600 or €1000. The €600 euro option pays the worker €2 an hour while the €1000 option pays him €12 an hour, how many people do you think would pay the extra €400 quid?

Sam Kade

NIMAN wrote: »

When I was younger I heard all this stuff before on Tomorrows World in the late 70s/early 80s, about how we would get to 2000 and robots would be doing everything for us.

Here we are 40 years later and we are all still working, paying taxes, same social issues exist now as did back then. You only have to look at old news reports, and see that society, for all its technological progress, still has not solved many basic issues.

I also think that in another 40 years we will still all be working, paying our taxes, worrying about things maybe we shouldn't worry about etc.

I mean do you honestly think that all the kids being born now will have no jobs to do when they get to 30, 40, 50? They will have.

The man in the wheelchair started this scare they really need to stop believing everything he spouts, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

Dirty Dingus McGee

But if there are no workers then there is nobody to buy all the products that these robots are making and thus these companies go out of business.

If there is 50% unemployment because of automation then nobody benefits.

buried

These people are probably buying underground bunkers for the next large asteroid strike what usually makes everything extinct on this planet, and that could actually happen without warning tomorrow, would also wipe out all the robots too.

WhiteMemento9

eeguy wrote: »

I don't think you really understand how this happened.
Jeff Bezos pays himself $80k a year, much less than most of the top brass in this country. Yet he's worth $65 billion.

He's worth that because he's built a huge multiplatform company that's one of the biggest employers in the US. It's not just Amazon shopping, but a hardware, software, cloud computing, robotics, AI and space company.

His worth is what some economist estimated that all these companies are worth if you wanted to buy them from Jeff. It's not like he's stolen $65 billion from people around the world. That money wouldn't magically appear in peoples pockets if he never started Amazon. It's more that he's created a business empire that's worth that.

Well done you have explained capitalism. I am saying this should not be how things work. You had a good idea and you should be fairly compensated for that but not to the tune of vastly disproportionate amounts in the billions-x range your lowest paid employee. You are essentially taking the value of human labor, getting it down the lowest cost possible and squeezing out the rest for yourself. Have you read the articles on jobs in Amazon? It is a pretty awful place to work by many accounts. Also Amazon as a company if you look at the economy as a whole is contributing to net job losses within the economy which was always going to happen so I don't blame them but for you to paint them as some great employer of people is disingenuous. By the way they are one of the leading companies in striving to automate everything. I guess they are doing this because he is going to give away all the money from the increased profit margins.

NIMAN

They have been talking about the apocalypse too since I was a toddler.

Vested interests here too, keeps likes of Hawking topical and interesting.

jimmy blevins

Those silicon valley boyo's are big fans of Ayn Rand, maybe they're planning on doing an "atlas shrugged".

eeguy

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Well done you have explained capitalism. I am saying this should not be how things work. You had a good idea and you should be fairly compensated for that but not to the tune of vastly disproportionate amounts in the billions-x range your lowest paid employee. You are essentially taking the value of human labor, getting it down the lowest cost possible and squeezing out the rest for yourself. Have you read the articles on jobs in Amazon? It is a pretty awful place to work by many accounts. Also Amazon as a company if you look at the economy as a whole is contributing to net job losses within the economy which was always going to happen so I don't blame them but for you to paint them as some great employer of people is disingenuous. By the way they are one of the leading companies in striving to automate everything. I guess they are doing this because he is going to give away all the money from the increased profit margins.

He doesn't have billions lying around in an account. It's just what his company is worth. It could be worth less tomorrow. He's not hoarding it like a dragon on a pile of gold and he can't give it away as he'd have to sell part of his business.

In terms of jobs, I suppose it's what you want. Sure he may have destroyed jobs in shops,by selling cheaper online, but that's inevitable. Every online seller is doing it and customers are more than happy to buy online. Is it the fault of Amazon that they're giving customers what they want? More choice at a lower price.
Amazon employs 300,000 people. One of the biggest employers in Washington state, which has the highest minimum wage laws in the US.

But Amazon has created thousands of high value jobs that may not have existed otherwise, constantly pushing the bounds of technology, creating new products and opportunities. Look at Blue Origin, Also, in terms of automation, you can't stop progress. Automation is just the way things are going. Machines are better than humans at plenty of things. You can wither embrace it or be a Luddite and fight it.

Elemonator

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Hence the importance of social protections...collective bargaining...trades unions, etc..all the things the reich wing trollboys on boards.ie sneer at.

Depends. In Ireland, the trade unions take the tax man for a ride a couple of times every few years.

Phoebas

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

Hence the importance of social protections...collective bargaining...trades unions, etc..all the things the reich wing trollboys on boards.ie sneer at.

20th century solution to a 21st century problem.

Arcade_Tryer

Silicon Valley billionaires buy underground bunkers preparing for the apocalypse

Must they wait for the apocalypse?

eeguy wrote: »

Most people think it'll be decades before robots take their jobs. The people who build the robots say it's just a matter of years.

With the greatest respect to the robot builders, they may know how to build robots, but they know f**k all else. They know one thing. Economists, historians, even politicians, know many things. The very fact that they think they might make the legal profession i.e. invariably the most protected, lucrative, and often corrupt industry in developed countries, redundant tells you everything you need to know about these guys.

WhiteMemento9

eeguy wrote: »

You're 100% right, but to acknowledge that fact we'd have to drastically lower our own standards of living and no one wants to do that. Say if you gave people the option: Either buy an iPhone for €600 or €1000. The €600 euro option pays the worker €2 an hour while the €1000 option pays him €12 an hour, how many people do you think would pay the extra €400 quid?

I'll answer this on a personal level because I think it is deeper question. I almost wrote a paragraph at the end of the post you quote pertaining to the nature of people. I got too far up my arse and I deleted it because I really don't understand any of it. I have often had periods in that life when I become incredibly weighed down by the problems of the world. I think it is a remarkably horrible place.

People often talk about how the holocaust was allowed to happen with so many good people standing by. People are inherently good right? I look at the world today and I think we are standing by while we kill 50% of the world by subjecting them to abject poverty. I feel though a complete sense of helpness towards what is going on. I plug back into the world with all the trappings I enjoy in a Westerm society to distract myself with music, friends, films, work etc and it feels like getting back on a train while somehow suppressing the anxiety I feel to the world as a whole I live in.

Phoebas

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

Some people would say we already live in that world when the world's eight richest people have same wealth as poorest 50%.

Most people posting on this site are probably well within the top 1-10%.

Who's for redistribution?

eeguy

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

The very fact that they think they might make the legal profession i.e. invariably the most protected, lucrative, and often corrupt industry in developed countries, redundant tells you everything you need to know about these guys.

Unfortunately no one is going to make lawyers redundant. They don't have a fully routine job. However, the routine parts of their job and the people who do them, will be automated like many already have:
https://www.ft.com/content/c8ef3f62-ea9c-11e5-888e-2eadd5fbc4a4

Technology has already contributed to a reduction of around 31,000 jobs in the sector including roles such as legal secretaries, the report said, as it predicted that another 39 per cent of jobs are at “high risk” of being made redundant by machines in the next two decades.

The optimistic view is that automation will help you do your job better, automating the parts that are boring and labour intensive, leaving you to focus on the innovative, creative side of things.

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

I'll answer this on a personal level because I think it is deeper question. I almost wrote a paragraph at the end of the post you quote pertaining to the nature of people. I got too far up my arse and I deleted it because I really don't understand any of it. I have often had periods in that life when I become incredibly weighed down by the problems of the world. I think it is a remarkably horrible place.

Its awful isn't it. I think we deal with it the same way we disassociate from knowing that we're all eventually going to die and nothing we do really matters in the grand scheme of things.

Arcade_Tryer

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

People often talk about how the holocaust was allowed to happen with so many good people standing by. People are inherently good right?

Nope. People are inherently human.

Why do you think children and weaker people ended up at the bottom in the gas chambers? It certainly wasn't by chance!

_Brian

eeguy wrote: »

When someone invents a machine to do your job are you really going to go on strike?

Taxi drivers in NY wrote a letter proposing a 50 year ban on autonomous cars, but there's no way anyone will listen to them.
Here's an interesting articles by Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2017/01/17/why-you-should-get-busy-adapting/#17d290d8e980



Most people think it'll be decades before robots take their jobs. The people who build the robots say it's just a matter of years.

But a system where robots are practical and flexible enough to replace many humans is still a long way off. And then there's the cost of such equipment.
For many and I'd even argue most companies this isn't in the near to medium future at all.

So Say i work as a welder doing installs in different locations every day or even moving to another job every week. the work is never the same, never standard, constantly changing. I work for a company employing 10 people turning over maybe €2m a year with maybe €100k profit for the owner. We're no where near having robots to do this type of work and then such companies couldn't afford them anyway.

I swear in the 1970's they were on tomorrow's world saying robots would be doing most jobs "in a few years", and I'd say we're very little closer to "most people" being replaced.

Look at the jobs currently replaced, robots in factories where you repeat the same action a million times, your reprogrammed and then repeat the new action a million times. Yes these jobs are ripe for replacement but that's happening already. Jobs that require intuitive work and where companies couldn't find a robot will continue to be done by people and will for many decades to come.

Companies like Nissan et al might afford €3-4million on a robot to spray a car, but most body shops and repair centres will continue to employ people. Because Larry the car sprayer can fix a bearing or run to the shops for parts when he's not spraying a car.

Galway_Old_Man

suicide_circus wrote: »

Robot tax.

Tax the absolute shıt out of all AI and robots to pay for the social welfare of all the workers they put out of a job.

When I was a wee greenhorn starting off my career, it was common in that company (and others by account) for their to be one secretary to every four engineers. She (were all women) would organise meetings etc. She and all like her were effectively replaced by Microsoft Office. How on Earth can you tax like for like in that scenario?


Edit: Or for a more modern take, how are you to tax the self service machines which are increasingly replacing supermarket staff? How do you even measure that?

arkrow

It'll be 10-15%

eeguy

_Brian wrote: »

But a system where robots are practical and flexible enough to replace many humans is still a long way off. And then there's the cost of such equipment.
For many and I'd even argue most companies this isn't in the near to medium future at all.

So Say i work as a welder doing installs in different locations every day or even moving to another job every week. the work is never the same, never standard, constantly changing. I work for a company employing 10 people turning over maybe €2m a year with maybe €100k profit for the owner. We're no where near having robots to do this type of work and then such companies couldn't afford them anyway.

I swear in the 1970's they were on tomorrow's world saying robots would be doing most jobs "in a few years", and I'd say we're very little closer to "most people" being replaced.

100% correct. What's different now is that computers learn through neural networks.
It's how autonomous cars are learning. A programmer can't sit down and write out all the variables a car might encounter. There's a million and one things that could happen and that could take decades. So you show the car how to drive, the same way you'd show a new driver. The objective is to drive for as long as possible without crashing, on a simulation that uses real world data. Then simulate millions of miles of driving. Every time the car crashes it learns not to do that again. Eventually they put that into a 100 cars and send them out into the real world, and again, they drive millions of miles and learn from every mistake.

You don't need to teach a computer all the different variables of a particular task. Just give it the basic rules and the objective, then simulate the task a few million times until the computer can do it better than a human. Tomorrows world didn't predict that.

Here's a cool vid of teaching a neural network to play Super Mario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44

WhiteMemento9

It is probably right to point out that the guy employing 10 people making a profit of 100k won't have the money to afford new tech for robot workers. He will get swallowed by by bigger companies who can implement the tech and do the jobs at a fraction of the price. Maybe the small company will survive because the business is so niche until the cost of replacing the human comes down dramatically but it will be the huge companies laying off people which will be felt by the economy most. People with the idea that we have seen this before or this tale has been told in the past have no idea of the technology coming.

eeguy

WhiteMemento9 wrote: »

It is probably right to point out that the guy employing 10 people making a profit of 100k won't have the money to afford new tech for robot workers. He will get swallowed by by bigger companies who can implement the tech and do the jobs at a fraction of the price. Maybe the small company will survive because the business is so niche until the cost of replacing the human comes down dramatically but it will be the huge companies laying off people which will be felt by the economy most. People with the idea that we have seen this before or this tale has been told in the past have no idea of the technology coming.

Exactly. you may have a successful taxi company with 20 drivers, earning a nice living, but most of your assets are tied up in the company.

All it takes is one lad with enough liquidity to buy 10 autonomous cars and he'll undercut you straight away. You can't keep the current business alive AND invest in new tech, so you just sell out as fast as you can. So that 21 people on the dole, while one lad makes a killing.
And we, the consumer, will praise him for it because he's providing a cheaper, more convenient service.

Is it wrong or is it just the way the world has always worked, but faster?

WhiteMemento9

eeguy wrote: »

Is it wrong or is it just the way the world has always worked, but faster?

It is both :pac: