George Hotz (Geohot) to Eliminate Capitalism by Replacing Low Wage Jobs with AI

[zMeul]

Quote

to eliminate Capitalism by replacing jobs with AI

this is why you don't give power to eggheads, they make omelet out of everything 

[Monkey Dust]

10 minutes ago, Lethal Seraph said:

Welp, guess I should stick with the Medical field then... cause you know, good luck wanting a robot to care for your sorry ass.

Actually AI could replace doctors for diagnosis, robotics for surgery. Nursing is probably safe for now. Very few careers are safe from AI & robotics, and even those that are may fall victim to there being barely anyone left who can afford there services.

 

A post-work society is something we should all be thinking about. Previously good careers disappearing within peoples working lives, with the collapse of consumer spending and tax revenues  that will accompany that, is something we really need to plan for or risk societal collapse. 

[Trik'Stari]

28 minutes ago, Stadin6 said:

once we go past (or close) the singularity of AI, AI would fix this problem.

Except they wouldn't go after just the rich, they'd go after all of us.

[CommandMan7]

2 hours ago, SirAhmix said:

moving up the chain until the only people left with jobs are programmers

Damn, I'm sure glad i'm a programmer.

[SurvivorNVL]

Kill Capitalism, kill peoples incentive to work - Money.  Money is survival.  We reach stagnation, and then our societies crumble.  Competition, the dynamic of striving for more, to improve, be better, to do better for yourself and your family, to create a lasting legacy for some, or to ensure the happiness of those around you - all taken away without people able to work jobs.  It's calling for the death of purpose.  Sure, there is no meaning to life, and people have to find meaning themselves, but it'll be damned harder, if not impossible if people can't grow, have experience, and work to get to the top.  An automated instance giving you your daily rations--yeah, that sounds like a high-tech bread line from Soviet Russia.

[kelvindeschutter]

28 minutes ago, Lethal Seraph said:

Welp, guess I should stick with the Medical field then... cause you know, good luck wanting a robot to care for your sorry ass.

they already can partly do the job of a home-doctor (in the Netherlands its called huisarts don't know the translation to it)

6 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Kill Capitalism, kill peoples incentive to work - Money.  Money is survival.  We reach stagnation, and then our societies crumble.  Competition, the dynamic of striving for more, to improve, be better, to do better for yourself and your family, to create a lasting legacy for some, or to ensure the happiness of those around you - all taken away without people able to work jobs.  It's calling for the death of purpose.  Sure, there is no meaning to life, and people have to find meaning themselves, but it'll be damned harder, if not impossible if people can't grow, have experience, and work to get to the top.  An automated instance giving you your daily rations--yeah, that sounds like a high-tech bread line from Soviet Russia.

you know what the problem is? its this we as humans dont know how to cope with this look at the industrial revolution for example it did not decrease jobs but it made more jobs but this is different this time AI outright replaces a human job and the part that we struggle with is that it doesn't create new jobs but instead decreases jobs thus the concept of money and the economy must be changed in order to fit this new way of living.

[SurvivorNVL]

9 minutes ago, kelvindeschutter said:

they already can partly do the job of a home-doctor (in the Netherlands its called huisarts don't know the translation to it)

 

you know what the problem is? its this we as humans dont know how to cope with this look at the industrial revolution for example it did not decrease jobs but it made more jobs but this is different this time AI outright replaces a human job and the part that we struggle with is that it doesn't create new jobs but instead decreases jobs thus the concept of money and the economy must be changed in order to fit this new way of living.

The other problem is that the immediate solution that many come to is that we'll need larger welfare states as people in various job fields, and sections will be replaced.  Replacing jobs and latching people on to governments for survival.  That's the worst outcome.  It is, as someone else said in this thread - something that can be done, and something that should not be done.  Especially if society isn't ready for it, and this would be quite the upset.  Every time a large number of people end up out of their jobs - you have civil unrest.

[kelvindeschutter]

13 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

The other problem is that the immediate solution that many come to is that we'll need larger welfare states as people in various job fields, and sections will be replaced.  Replacing jobs and latching people on to governments for survival.  That's the worst outcome.  It is, as someone else said in this thread - something that can be done, and something that should not be done.  Especially if society isn't ready for it, and this would be quite the upset.  Every time a large number of people end up out of their jobs - you have civil unrest.

indeed you may have civil unrest but only when its done wrong. also i just found this video from CGP Grey about this subject

 

 

 

 

[SurvivorNVL]

1 minute ago, kelvindeschutter said:

indeed you may have civil unrest but only when its done wrong. also i just found this video from CGP Grey about this subject

 

 

 

 

Oh, I know that very video.  That's why it always goes back to, "Should science do this?"  The answer is no.  Remove all the low skill jobs, and people lose a place to start and gain experience.  Remove all jobs, and it just gets even worse for humanity.  We'll just exist.  Not have purpose individually.  So, hopefully people decide, "Let's not." and stop it from coming in to fruition.  Economically it does make sense for companies;  AI would be more efficient, less accident prone, and require far less resources, and it could effectively never stop working--until it becomes sentient.  Lot of risks involved either way.

[kelvindeschutter]

11 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Oh, I know that very video.  That's why it always goes back to, "Should science do this?"  The answer is no.  Remove all the low skill jobs, and people lose a place to start and gain experience.  Remove all jobs, and it just gets even worse for humanity.  We'll just exist.  Not have purpose individually.  So, hopefully people decide, "Let's not." and stop it from coming in to fruition.  Economically it does make sense for companies;  AI would be more efficient, less accident prone, and require far less resources, and it could effectively never stop working--until it becomes sentient.  Lot of risks involved either way.

i think that we should science it but use it on mars so that we need a minimum amount of humans or on other baren places like deserts in order to make effective use of al that empty space

[Murdoch]

1 hour ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Kill Capitalism, kill peoples incentive to work - Money.  Money is survival.  We reach stagnation, and then our societies crumble.  Competition, the dynamic of striving for more, to improve, be better, to do better for yourself and your family, to create a lasting legacy for some, or to ensure the happiness of those around you - all taken away without people able to work jobs.  It's calling for the death of purpose.  Sure, there is no meaning to life, and people have to find meaning themselves, but it'll be damned harder, if not impossible if people can't grow, have experience, and work to get to the top.  An automated instance giving you your daily rations--yeah, that sounds like a high-tech bread line from Soviet Russia.

 

It'll be really interesting to see how it goes. A huge problem will be that the first jobs to be automated are low level, usually done by those with the least political influence, and those that are least likely to vote. So there's very little chance the system will change when those go, low level workers will just have insecure jobs, worse conditions, and poor pay, if they're lucky to have a job at all.

 

When we can start automating "skilled" or "middle class" jobs, then things will get really interesting. Large corporations already have disproportionate political influence, and you could argue a disproportionate amount of the resources. They'll want things to stay that way, and the thought of running a company with minimal staff must be hugely appealing. But here's the rub, in their quest to automate jobs, and increase profits while retaining the system that has worked so well for them (capitalism). They run the risk of destroying a key part of that, "consumerism".

 

The only way I see it going to begin with, is large levels of unemployment, but Government handouts increasing at the behest of companies, so that consumerism can be propped up.

 

Edit: But the main problem is, we'll try to stick to the current system. Which I think is the biggest mistake. We could move beyond it, and replace it with something better, but people can't and won't think that way. Unfortunately.

 

 

[Sharp_3yE]

There are two things about this.

1. No, robots/AI aren't going to take everyone's jobs. Certain jobs may be replaced by AI but in an ever evolving world new jobs are created. We no longer have a milk man. Did all milk men become homeless? No, they found a new industry to work in. There were very few coding jobs just 30 years ago. Now, it's a GIANT business.

 

2. This isn't going to happen tomorrow. There is always transition. What I think will happen is mostly a mixture of AI and Human jobs in some markets. The auto industry isn't 100% run by machines. There are still humans doing a lot of the work and humans that have to run and fix the machines.

[PepeSilvia]

The expropriation of the means of production from the hands of the working class? Surely that is a fundamental goal of capital, no? (didnt watch the vid though)

[Katorice]

11 hours ago, Lays said:

Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

we should. like we did with super old industrial jobs. depression takes over the economy like wildfire at first. but give it time and the dust settles; then you'll see new jobs come to light that previously weren't even available.

 

will it be available without zero effort in our part? no, of course not. life is not a hand out.

 

@SurvivorNVL

 

8 hours ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Oh, I know that very video.  That's why it always goes back to, "Should science do this?"  The answer is no.  Remove all the low skill jobs, and people lose a place to start and gain experience.  Remove all jobs, and it just gets even worse for humanity.  We'll just exist.  Not have purpose individually.  So, hopefully people decide, "Let's not." and stop it from coming in to fruition.  Economically it does make sense for companies;  AI would be more efficient, less accident prone, and require far less resources, and it could effectively never stop working--until it becomes sentient.  Lot of risks involved either way.

that reminds me of "Whos gon' pick the damn cotton then?!" --- "giant machines that run on fossil fuels"

idk what the future holds. but with quantum computing/gates, renewable energy, and scripting; can't forget the language that will run everything. humans are doing pretty good.

 

honestly, all it takes to learn computer language is time, dedication, and access to a PC; internet optional. Almost no one has time to learn something new. what with working 40hours a week (minimum for most), school, family, friends, and distractions(TV, movies, dinners, etc). Say you lost your job tomorrow along with all your friends/family. well, now you have a lot of time on your hands. get creative. I'm sure you have a hobby, right?

 

The current problem I see a lot is: Guy loses low paying job. Guy now spends all his free time looking for yet another low paying job.

but I get "living week to week, month to month, check to check"; that being said, you shouldn't have dug yourself into that whole.

"I should have saved" is something I hear a lot from friends after they lose their spot in a 7/11 or a BrgKing/McDnlds.

[AlTech]

15 hours ago, Citadelen said:

While I am vehemently against Capitalism, removing peoples jobs isn't the way to go about it. 

Oh come on! Capitalism is wonderful!

[snes]

17 hours ago, Monkey Dust said:

Very few careers are safe from AI & robotics, and even those that are may fall victim to there being barely anyone left who can afford there services.

THIS. He can program as much crap as he wants. If no one can afford a car or even a ride in a self driving taxi, then why would anyone want to spend money on his software? What good is a robot cashier, if millions of people have to grow their own food or eat tree bark in order to survive?

 

That is why I refuse to use self checkout registers and don't shop at Amazon. (Fortunately, we don't have Walmarts in Germany.) If millions of people lose their jobs, then it really doesn't matter what you're doing for a living since no one will be able to pay for whatever you do or work on. Also, a world without human interaction would be a pretty sad place. Meeting your future wife or husband would be a lot harder.

[Citadelen]

5 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Oh come on! Capitalism is wonderful!

Can't tell if sarcastic...

[SirAhmix]

17 minutes ago, Citadelen said:

Can't tell if sarcastic...

My sentiments exactly...

[Tech_Dreamer]

& America is just starting a war for "freedom" .

 

 

 

[LukeTim]

On 3/16/2016 at 9:45 PM, SurvivorNVL said:

Oh, I know that very video.  That's why it always goes back to, "Should science do this?"  The answer is no.  Remove all the low skill jobs, and people lose a place to start and gain experience.  Remove all jobs, and it just gets even worse for humanity.  We'll just exist.  Not have purpose individually.  So, hopefully people decide, "Let's not." and stop it from coming in to fruition.  Economically it does make sense for companies;  AI would be more efficient, less accident prone, and require far less resources, and it could effectively never stop working--until it becomes sentient.  Lot of risks involved either way.

Not true at all. We will have no purpose in the market perhaps, other than as consumers, but we can still have purpose. I see society moving to more leisurely and creative pursuits. Art, music, sport... people will do all of these things, and they'll do them for fun instead of doing them for money.

Similar to the way walking and running has turned from a daily necessity to something we often do for fun, so too will cultural pursuits become something we do for fun instead of doing them to earn a living.

[Misanthrope]

Um...we have been doing this for like 30 years now, instead is not "robots" or "AI" and companies just call it "outsourcing"

 

Seriously the few menial jobs that are geographically constrained to first world countries (mostly retail, services and distribution) are the last frontier but we have been doing this for a while. After it's all robots this countries will just give people living wages to combat unemployment while they transition (or in American, Trump will probably find an excuse to get them out of the country like "they're brown!" or "they're Muslims!")

[Blackie Sheen]

WTF is this? How is taking away low wage jobs going to help counter capitalism. Is having more unemployed people is going to help diminish the disparities between poor and rich.

 

Honestly, his annoucement looks more in the sense of capitalism than not. Its more like he just wants to remove posts in order to maximise his profits.