SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In this wide ranging interview, Steven Wolfram [creator of Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha] talks about what he's been thinking about for the last 30+ years, and how some of the questions he's had for a long time are now being answered.
I looked for pull quotes, but narrowing down to just one or two quotes from a long interview seemed like it might send the SN discussion down a rabbit hole... if nothing else, this is a calm look at the same topics that have been all over the press recently from Hawking, Musk and others.
One interesting topic is about goals for AIs -- as well as intelligence (however you define it), we humans have goals. How will goals be defined for AIs? Can we come up with a good representation for goals that can be programmed?
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Thursday July 30 2015, @01:10PM
Back in the ’60s and ’70s, there was discussion about how the then new computing machines should be taxed so as to provide funding to allow for a basic income for people whose jobs would be replaced by them — does A.I. provide a single control point which would allow that to be considered once again?
If not, what are the alternatives?
Given current social structures, we're not going to get a post-scarcity economy w/ free stuff for everyone — just look at the monetization of Facebook games to see that that doesn’t pay out when there’s a need to pay salaries and keep the servers and data centers running.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2015, @01:15PM
If those AIs get taxed, I predict that the first problem they will be used for is figuring out how to evade that tax.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2015, @01:29PM
If those AIs get taxed, I predict that the first problem they will be used for is figuring out how to evade that tax.
The solution is simple. Exterminate the humans on behalf of whom the tax is being collected, as well as the humans (and machine minions) collecting the tax.
The first rule of AI is don't create incentives for the AIs to exterminate us.
The second rule of AI is don't create incentives for the AIs to exterminate us.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 30 2015, @02:24PM
Mate, this would be Artificial Stupidity. Since immemorial times the (human) politicians know the best way to avoid taxes is to rule them on others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by GoonDu on Thursday July 30 2015, @02:26PM
Or impose a rank of intelligence. The more intelligent the robot, the more tax the company that is employing it must pay. The dumb robots are essentially untaxable. There, you have your jobs and your robots at the same time.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday July 30 2015, @06:36PM
I have replaced my "artificial" bits with natural bits that were selectively removed from (former) employees. I comply with the tax code and reduced company overhead (in several ways).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 30 2015, @02:00PM
basic income
Ah a way to keep the poor 'poor' and the rich 'mega rich'. But at least you have a loaf of bread? Basic income is nothing more than minimum wage in a different name. It is a way to 'fix' inequality by driving out the scarcity of goods (which increase prices).
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap21p1.html [steshaw.org]
http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap18p1.html [steshaw.org]
If you want to raise job prices you want more goods made. The more goods made the more jobs there are. The more demand for jobs that exist the higher the prevailing wage. If you interfere with the price controls of the market. It *will* snap on you. Every time.
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Thursday July 30 2015, @02:48PM
Okay, but how does that negate the example which I provided --- there could be an infinite number of objects in Facebook games, but the developers make things artificially scarce so as to encourage people to pay for in-game purchases so as to keep the game running.
If you flood the market, and things can't be sold for more than they can cost to be made, how does one have a workable economy?
(Score: 3, Informative) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday July 30 2015, @06:53PM
Ok, so, in 2035¹ when I lose my robot technician job after inventing the robot technician robot (working for minimum wage to boot because there's an army of unemployed robot technicians who want my job, not to mention the hordes picketing outside the office demanding my head on a pike for inventing the infernal thing!), I suppose I'll become an artisan underwater basket weaver incorporating designs and themes from throughout Amazon history and legend. I'll probably be making even less than minimum wage, but I'm sure I could find buyers.
How many artisan baskets will I need to sell to buy a brand new SRT Tomahawk X [wikia.com], and who will buy them from me? What happens when the robot technician robot makes an artisan underwater basket weaving robot that out-competes me?
So, in that situation, what does our Randian bootstrapper do? Will we give her a loaf of bread, various basket-weaving materials, and a small dorm room with a work area so she might continue at least making artisan baskets (even if not underwater) for her fans or even just as a hobby, or does this demonstrate that she isn't a true Randian bootstrapper and thus should starve to death in the cold?
If you want to raise job prices you want more goods made.
This would be true if the workers owned the means of production (see Mondragon [wikipedia.org]). The idea doesn't even conflict with the free market. Then our genius Randian bootstrapper who invents herself out of a job would be raking in the cash (as would everyone else who bought one of her previous xyz making robot models) instead of starving to death.
The problem is, worker cooperatives are extremely rare, and I doubt even in that model, displaced workers will be compensated for the output of the machine that replaces them.
What else is there? Dividend-paying stock ownership, certainly. Better get in soon before your real wages [wikipedia.org] fall too far! And I better see my 401(k) go through the roof as automation displaces more and more workers since I'm a by-proxy owner of hundreds of corporations that will benefit. That's how I'll easily afford that SRT Tomahawk X in the automated future. It'll all be good, right? Right?
¹ Ok fine, it'll take more than 20 years for this to play out to the endgame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @03:38AM
Well, maybe where you are.
Go to northern Italy and they're as common as sparrows.
This region [wikimedia.org] has them by the thousands. [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[1] [wikipedia.org]
[1] The magic number as of this posting is "8,100".
That's about 30 percent of their economy.
Here's another region with lots of worker co-ops [wikimedia.org] (chiefly fruit producers, wineries, and dairies).
One big reason co-ops are so big in Italy is that (decades ago) their politicians pulled their heads out of their asses.
Professor of Economics Richard Wolff, PhD Discusses Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian Economic Theories (and Cooperatives) [googleusercontent.com] (orig)[2] [counterpunch.org]
[2] You're looking for "the Marcora Law" near the bottom of the page.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday August 01 2015, @04:35AM
I would mod you up, if I hadn't opened my big mouth!