SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Human Reservation Plan
Bill doesn't want to be left behind by Zuckerberg so he decided to share his own thoughts on AI. Different from his previous shared ideas about how great it was. Now there is a bit more doom and gloom. Crime. Unemployment. Healthcare. Horrible things. What the world needs is a plan. Guess who has a plan ... It's the pope, and Bill and "the government".
Set aside some jobs for humans.
A human reservation. For the human to human interactions. So you don't get the bad news from the machine. That it's the machine that tells one human to tell another human the bad news is apparently softening the blow of the bad news.
http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=26/08/13/2028222
Gates Warns Society Faces An AI-Pocalypse Unless We Get More Socialist
Bill Gates thinks that experts underestimate the potential havoc AI will wreak on society and says preparations to ease the transition are inadequate.
The Microsoft founder and former CEO is usually a cheerful proponent of AI tech, talking up its potential to transform healthcare, education, and business productivity.
Yet in a missive posted to his personal website, the billionaire philanthropist says the AI era is likely to be one of the most turbulent times in human history, and how we allow it to play out will determine whether the world becomes a fairer place or if the divide between rich and poor becomes greater than ever.
This kind of talk will sound dangerously close to socialism for many Americans. There are always winners and losers in a market-led economy, so why should things be any different with AI? Those wealthy enough to invest in it and control it will prosper, as others will find themselves on skid row.
But, Gates says, this time it will be different. Previous technology transitions happened over several generations and created new jobs where human cognition was required, whereas AI is starting to replace human cognition. The winners are likely to be a small group of people, and the losers will be everyone else.
It will not affect just one or two sectors, according to the AI fab club: AI will replace human roles in fields as diverse as law, customer services, medicine, software, and manufacturing. And it will hit these industries rapidly, over the course of a decade or less, rather than taking a few generations.
Gates wrote:
When a community has high unemployment, the ripple effects can be pervasive. Research suggests that in some parts of the United States, factory closures contribute to a rise in deaths from opioid overdoses. Now imagine similar pressures on both white-collar and blue-collar workers nationwide.
There will be some new jobs created, Gates says, but without the right policies in place there will be far fewer than today, and entry-level jobs are among those most likely to vanish (as we're already seeing in the tech industry).
Blue-collar jobs will also be affected, as AI-powered robots are advancing faster than people realize - much of the progress is happening in China. These may begin to compete with people on some physical tasks, such as in the construction and hospitality industries, within a few years.
Gates says there are several big risks from AI adoption, foremost of which is that many work roles are set to disappear forever. He notes that during the Great Depression of the 1930s, unemployment in the US hit 25 percent and remained in double digits for much of that decade, but ultimately recovered as demand, investment, and growth returned. He fails to mention, however, that it took a global war for that to happen.
The biggest shift comes when AI operates error-free operation, without humans prepping its work or checking its output. Gates says we need to think now about reducing job losses, or risk much of society ending up unemployed.
Another danger, Gates says, is that AI empowers people to do harm: AI-driven malware already lets low-skilled attackers launch cyberattacks, while generative AI makes fraud, disinformation, and deepfakes easier to produce.
The third big threat is that AI systems could stunt the mental development of children, and crowd out human relationships.
So how is society meant to avoid this apocalyptic vision and ensure AI becomes the force for good that Microsoft's progenitor believes it to be?
Gates says AI needs both a domestic and international framework. Nationally, that means bodies that can set priorities across government agencies to ensure every risk is accounted for. Yet even a nation with its own house in order remains exposed to cross-border risks, so an international body must be built in parallel.
If that sounds like wishful thinking, get in the queue. Gates notes it would require US-China cooperation, and under the current Washington administration, that's about as likely as pigs flying..
Beyond that, some jobs - social care for instance - should stay human. Gates also thinks the tax system will need rebalancing, as more people out of work means less income tax to fund government itself.
A starting point, he suggests, is taxing AI tokens and robots to reduce corporations' incentives to swap meatbags for machines. This could fund retraining and a stronger safety net, but would need careful targeting so it doesn't hinder beneficial uses of AI, like drug discovery and better education
Again, critics will likely dismiss this as socialism and point out that Microsoft was ruthless in pursuing profits under Gates' leadership.
In a final message to world leaders, Gates urges them to act now, "before unemployment rises sharply, communities are hurting, and public trust has eroded."
This marks a shift for the Microsoft founder, who two years ago told people not to worry about AI, in particular energy use and increased greenhouse gas emissions, arguing AI would eventually solve the problems it creates.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 28, @04:29PM
Around 2008 I worked with an MD who had research projects running at the local Uni, an ex-research assistant went sour grapes on him - the assistant claims that he, himself, mishandled PHI in violation of HIPAA and blamed the MD not for not training him (a PhD candidate), not for mis-training him or otherwise encouraging him to violate HIPAA, but instead blamed the MD for insufficient oversight of himself while he was violating HIPAA. The uni responded by shutting down all programs associated with the MD and cutting all ties with him. MD took them to court and proved the Uni mishandled the whole situation, but there were no effective damages to recover and no way to restart the programs it was just a "finding of fault" that cost the MD tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and weeks in court spread across months of stress about the injustice of the situation. MD said at the time that he enjoyed his root canal procedure (which came in the middle of the court proceedings) more.
Coincidentally, around this time the MD's company I was working for was led by a younger MD CEO, before they hired me to execute their software ambitions they already had an FDA consultant. Both the consultant and I advised the CEO of certain certainties of failure in their FDA submission strategies but the CEO pushed back with "your path takes too long and costs money we don't have, we just have to try it this way and hope it works" which, of course, it didn't, in two separate aspects both of which both of us advised the CEO he was on a course unlikely to succeed. By the 2nd round I was pretty much in Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka mode of "no, don't, stop..." but the other children in the room weren't asking "why doesn't he listen." After the predicted rejections were returned from the FDA, the company "found the money" to do it the way suggested in the first place, at higher cost and a year's delay from the advised path. A year or so after that, after expending significant time and effort pursuing a sales relationship with an overseas company I specifically advised them of being untrustworthy, unethical and having demonstrably illegally damaged a previous company I worked with through patent violations, when the company finally ran out of money in my "exit interview" the CEO expressed disappointment that I didn't advise them more vehamently, even though they repeatedly waved the org chart in my face with them at the top...
That whole university experience, in that company and the others I worked with there, left me disappointed in the Gen-whatever that was graduating there in the 2010 timeframe, their habits of avoiding things they don't want to deal with by "ghosting," and their utter lack of persoal accountability to themselves - acting as if, and apparently believing to their core, it's other people's responsibility when they make bad decisions for themselves.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]