The idea of creating bullshit jobs just so people have a place to go is bordering on inhumane today. When we look at the jobs many do, they are not sources of pride, satisfaction, nor healthy esteem.
Taking it a step further, automation ultimately frees people to do what they are uniquely able to do: be creative and exercise judgment (two things no machine will ever be able to do, imho). Pride, satisfaction, and healthy esteem come from those two activities, and from knowing that you are improving the lives of others by producing something they value.
However, a no-strings-attached safety net will be needed during the transition to large-scale automation (which is fine, as long as it replaces all the current strings-attached welfare programs).
Bullshit job is to harsh. It needs be more presice like Copy & Paste jobs or form completion jobs.
I could not agree more on the necessity of a no-strings-attached safety net.
I recently had a conversation with someone in the event industry about what the pandemic has done to her and her family finances. They're collecting unemployment benefits and her musician husband was being retrained for another line of work. Inflexible bureaucratic systems had been a major source of trouble for the couple.
UBI worth $1000 a month printed out of thin air and handed out to every adult but taxed away to a degree depending on other income would be the right way to go. That $1000 a month would be an absolute and unconditional income floor for everyone. It would allow for the necessary flexibility to seek temporary jobs and gigs or retrain if necessary without having to deal with any bureaucracy other than reporting the income or having it reported by the employers. All the bureaucracy involving unemployment benefits could be abolished. Massive money saved. The inflationary effect of the free money being doled out would be offset by the deflationary pressure caused by gains from increased automation.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think the likelihood of this happening are low. Politicians and bureaucrats do not have power if there are no string attached safety nets. They need to have strings so it enhances their power.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think machines already exercise judgement and it will only get more sophisticated.
Can you please explain how machines already exercise 'judgment'? I suppose it depends upon how one defines judgment. My view of judgment involves rationally going against what all the data would suggest you should do -- and machines cannot do that. Machines cannot evaluate all the data, conclude that the data say we should do "X" then decide to do "Y" based on some 'reason' that is not data-driven (and not merely something 'random').
I feel like AI can go in any direction we can and farther. The more data an algorithm has to analyze the more it can narrow down a conclusion. Isn't that the same thing we do? We take the data of our experiences and accessible knowledge and sift through the relevant parts to apply to an idea or situation and act based on the output of that data. As with us, if the parameters are set to process moral or ethical ideologies along the way they are considered or ignored based on priority set within the parameters. Or am I misunderstanding your question?
It looks like we have two different definitions of 'judgment' we are working with.
The ability to
does not constitute 'judgment' (according to my definition). Yes, machines and AI can do that (and do it better than we can). 'Judgment' is (according to my definition), when all that sifting through the data would lead you to decide to do "X" but you choose to do "Y" instead.
Embedded within my definition of judgment is the 'free will' argument. In other words, humans have free will and are able to exercise that free will by going against the data.
My short definition of 'judgment' is the ability to be 'rationally irrational'. I am 'irrational' in the sense that I am going against what the data (or algorithm) would tell me, but I am going against the data not out of some randomness or whimsical nature, but because I sincerely believe it is 'best' to go against the data. I may not even be able to explain 'why' I am going against the data, but I am actively choosing to do so, nonetheless.
There was a time I probably would have agreed with you out of hand, but lately I’ve been questioning free will and if it really even exists and I have landed on anything solid yet.
If one is primed to do something such that it feels wrong not to do it, even if it’s obviously wrong to do it, is there really a choice or is there just a default response?
This is the ultimate question to be grappled with, imho. If there is no free will, then we are all merely machines. And, if we are all merely machines, then the likelihood that other 'machines' (i.e. machine-learning algorithms and AI) overtake the human race is but a matter of time.
Also, if there is no free will, there is no morality -- how can an individual be held responsible for 'bad actions' when he/she had no choice in the matter? How can Thanos be 'evil' for wanting to annihilate half of all the beings in the universe?
Personally, I do not find the "there is no free will" argument compelling; however, I doubt I could ever present an adequate 'proof' that free will exists (other than the notion that our own conception of morality exposes something within ourselves that deeply begs the question -- similar to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" -- I have an innate sense of right and wrong, therefore there must be some reason I have that sense, and a lack of free will would violate that reason).
However, like all things, that sense of right and wrong can become corrupt, can lose its bearings, can end up pointing an individual in the opposite direction. The fact that we possess a moral compass strongly suggests that we are free to choose one direction over another -- even if that compass is subject to various corruptions and/or misalignment or drift.
"If there is no free will, then we are all merely machines. And, if we are all merely machines, then the likelihood that other 'machines' (i.e. machine-learning algorithms and AI) overtake the human race is but a matter of time."
Take a look around :P
"Also, if there is no free will, there is no morality -- how can an individual be held responsible for 'bad actions' when he/she had no choice in the matter? How can Thanos be 'evil' for wanting to annihilate half of all the beings in the universe?"
Morality changes depending on the society one is looking at.
I never really considered Thanos evil... just misguided and lazy.
I know these aren't particularly stimulating well thought out responses, but I'm getting ready for work and a little short on time. My apologies.
I'm not convinced there is or isn't free will,.. I'm just struggling with it. A few years ago I was introduced to the concept that wheat domesticated humanity rather than the other way around and taking that into account with Sagan's theories on genetic drivers and it left me with a lot to sift through, lol. I hope I'll ponder this throughout the day and have a more compelling reply, but I didn't want to get stuck in a loop and just burn out before responding.
I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to this. I hope the wait hasn't offended you.
Before I go on I'd like to re-iterate that I'm still on the fence on this topic and I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of interesting discussion and maybe debate.
I don't think morality is necessary in determining whether or not a threat should be removed. For instance, a wolf snatching a child from a village is a bad actor but morality doesn't factor in. From the wolf's perspective the hunting party that guns it down, either for revenge or simply to remove further threat, would be bad actors. It was only doing what wolves do.
When you say you have an inane sense of right and wrong, do you mean you believe it's something your born with? And do we have a moral compass, per say? Or do we just have a collection of chemical interactions and electrical impulses layered innumerable times and interwoven into what we perceive as such?
There are theories out there that with enough data everything can be predicted, even peoples’ behaviors. The advancement in weather prediction technology seems to support that.
The more data collected across the globe the more predictable the weather becomes. One could posit when the day comes when we’ve seeded the entire stratosphere (or wherever clouds roam) with nanobots we’ll be able to predict months out to the minute.
In closing, however, I’d like to stay on the fence. I came to the conclusion some time ago that there’s a very delicate mix of random and predetermination at play simply because humanity isn’t driving force behind life. The earth itself is a living organism and we’re but one part of it.
I also gravitate toward the idea that we’re more or less a “micro organism” in a recently fertilized embryonic universe and are equivalent to whatever builds the neural network of our own brains in utero. The cycle of life seems pretty consistent to me. I don’t see any reason to doubt it’s the same all the way up. Not to be confused with turtles all the way down, though. 😁
Edit to add: I wonder if the fertilization of a human egg replicates the Big Bang. We know it’s not a case of nothingness to sudden everything, but we have the benefit of an overview. Considering theories on dark matter and other cosmic intellectualism well beyond my comprehension maybe we’re to small to see the nothingness is really something.