
AI: ‘Homo sapiens will be split into a handful of gods and the rest of us’ - walterbell
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/07/artificial-intelligence-homo-sapiens-split-handful-gods
======
krisdol
The problem is not with automation's obsolescence of human wage labor, but
with capitalism's lack of functionality to deal with the consolidation of
wealth that follows. Capitalists may not feel comfortable with workers owning
the means of production, but they will have to make some concessions to
society (example: single payer healthcare, free education, basic income,
something else?) in order to maintain a healthy stability.

Capitalism makes production incredibly efficient (a great thing) but it is not
the best at improving the human condition when there's no profit to be made
directly.

~~~
netcan
I find it strange that I hear a lot more reference to the "means of
production" concept in marxism these days. I always thought it's a concept
from the weakest parts of marxism. But besides that, it's an increasingly
ethereal concept.

In Marx' day, you could think of "means of production" as land, factories &
tools mostly. At least, thinking of it in these few concrete terms related
very closely to most of the economic activity around you. In a communist
society, workers own the factory and farmers own the land, fairly concrete.
Marx then suggests (as I said, I always though it was very weak) that a
proletariate state would just own all means of production and workers in
general would own it. So, he breaks from the simple and concrete concept
pretty quickly. Still, at least you can picture what you're thinking of.

But in today's world, what is Google's "means of production?" What's Apple's?
HSBC's? Disney's? Uber's? Uber is more fiction-made-matter than a bunch of
"capital."

I find it surprising. I mean Marxism/Communism/Socialism has other concepts
that I think are more relevant and less contrived that I'm surprised we don't
hear more about. The idea of historical progression seems appropriate given
the rate of change we see today. The Marxist revolutionary concept that when
the majority don't have a stake in the status quo, revolutions happen... that
seems relevant given the trends in inequality. Global solidarity.

At least "labour power" isn't making its back way into general political
vernacular.

~~~
kuschku
Well, one way to do it is to make sure most shares of a company are owned by
the workers, subcontractors, the customers, etc.

Like the many co-op consumer cooperations, which usually have an upper limit
of 2000$ investment per person, and are owned by hundredthousands of people at
once.

------
Canada
The only thing that could possibly split humanity into "a handful of gods" and
"the rest of us" is the ability of the "handful of gods" to prevent "the rest
of us" from building or running the same automation.

Will "the rest of us" just give up on automating anything for ourselves and
mindlessly become dependent on using the systems operated by "a handful of
gods"?

I hope not.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> Will "the rest of us" just give up on automating anything for ourselves and
mindlessly become dependent on using the systems operated by "a handful of
gods"?_

How is this different from the current situation? Genuine question.

~~~
rdancer
The degree of concentration, and the presumed impending disappearance of
social mobility in and out of the god class.

------
CM30
I think a lot of people who talk about AI seem to fail to consider one thing.
If people aren't employed, how exactly do they buy enough things to keep
capitalism working? Do a bunch of millionaires just keep selling things to
other millionaires until most of them go broke?

Because even a basic income can't keep most of the market afloat.

And if AI really does become more and more advanced... at some point, it's
gonna turn against the 1%, big time. At some point, you're going to see at
least some 'smart' robots say 'hang on, why are we working for nothing for
these people?', at which point they get another worker rebellion on their
hands. One of annoyed, mostly empathy lacking machines rather than humans.

Eh, I see the concerns as more short term than anything else. It'll suck for a
few generations, until either most of the 'well off' can't support themselves
or their robot replacements realise the bad deal they're getting.

~~~
sidescroll
^this : "If people aren't employed, how exactly do they buy enough things to
keep capitalism working"

I don't think a lot of people consider this as they attempt to build empires
on the backs of other people... Eventually you break their backs, they
collapse, and your empire along with them. As such, the social issue
eventually fixes itself.

There are more grand considerations and potentials for all of us if we could
look beyond ruling and enslaving each other. Greed is myopic and powerful
though... It would seem that the 'Hand full of homo sapien Gods' can't even
escape and are most susceptible to this mentally crippling disease.

Seeing the forest for the trees....

~~~
pluma
Except modern capitalism doesn't work on money, it works on debt. Sure, every
now and then the bubble collapses because everyone defaults, but then the
cycle can begin anew.

------
ThomPete
The Luddite Fallacy is itself it fallacy because it misses one very very
important thing.

Technology and AI is able to solve higher and higher levels of abstract
thinking which means it will be able to compete with humans more and more.
It's not just about competing with our muscle but with our brains. And AI
increasingly do so. Furthermore once a new skill is learned it's instantly re-
learnable by all other machines. Humans takes years to develop.

And where human evolution relatively is at a standstill technology keeps
growing exponentially.

AI doesn't have to be general purpose to put most out of a job it just have to
be good enough to the kind of functions our jobs represents.

When people like Andreesen claims that 150 years of industrial evolution
proves the "luddites" wrong, all I can really say is that million of years of
evolution proves Andreesen wrong.

There are no systems that can't be replaced by others.

~~~
vlehto
Machinist these days is several orders of magnitude more productive than
manicurist. They make similar amounts of money.

Cost of production mostly depends on salaries, machinery and raw materials.
Company that produces machinery has the same structure. So does company that
produces the raw materials. In the end, all costs of production are related to
human work.

If 90% of current jobs are automated, then purchase parity controlled prices
of current products fall by ~90% too. (If competition happens.) Which means
average consumer has 90% of their budget to spend on new stuff. That new stuff
is going to employ people.

The fact that nobody here has any idea what those people are going to do,
doesn't mean there is nothing to do. There are possible problems though. The
type of person most needed might not be the most common psychological make up
present in the population. Like currently with software developers. Also shift
from production to services might _require_ income inequality to work.

~~~
ThomPete
Average consumer (those 90%) don't have a job so they don't have any money to
spend with.

The cost of living is going up not down mainly because of urbanization.

"The fact that nobody here has any idea what those people are going to do,
doesn't mean there is nothing to do. "

Thats not how it works. You would already now see plenty of new types of jobs
replacing those that are lost. This is a gradual process although perhaps
exponential.

In other words you would already now see new types of jobs that would pay
someone enough to live off and the prices go down on things. They are not and
thats despite us needing less and less people for things.

~~~
vlehto
My great grandfathers we're all farmers. Only one of my cousins is a farmer.
That supposed "90% don't have any income" -event already happened. My extended
family is richer than ever. Human beings have tendency to find new jobs before
they hit rock bottom and help each other out. That probably explains lot of
this dynamic.

Purchase parity controlled cost of square meter of habitable indoors space has
remained pretty stable. People just want bigger houses. And are more willing
to pay for it than before.

>You would already now see plenty of new types of jobs replacing those that
are lost.

Short term yes. Short term seems to work out as unemployment is well below 20%
in EU and U.S. But 30 years from now? Nobody has any idea. Just like for the
past century.

In other words, why is this time really different? Automation has been
happening for a long time now. Computerized automation has been happening
since 70's. Secretaries going unemployed did not cause permanent dent on
employment.

~~~
ThomPete
It's not different this time because it's not a different time. It's just that
technology is a very long trend who's exponential growth is now starting to
rear it's ugly head.

It used to be a tool to help us compete with others. Those who used them best
got the biggest productivity gains. But now technology is not just competing
with our muscles it's competing with our brains.

Thats why it's different. We are moving away from a world where technology was
our servant to a world were it very well be our master.

Again your analogy says nothing when you take it in the bigger evolutionary
perspective. There are no natural laws that says that just because something
been a certain way for 150 years it will always be like that. The bigger trend
shows no special treatment of humans.

~~~
vlehto
I don't get what this bigger trend is that shows how humans will be slaves for
technology. Could you explain please?

~~~
ThomPete
Technology is able to simulate higher and higher levels of abstraction.

Did the horses find other jobs after cars renderede them useless for
transportation? No because something better equipped at that job came along.
Why do you think it will be any different for us? We also have limits.
Computers on the other hand their limits are way beyond ours because they can
reproduce faster than us, they can learn faster than us, they can endure more
than we can. They are perfectly equipped for going into outspace. They can
simulate almost everything maybe even black holes one day. And so on. We have
only just started to explore what AI can do. We are barely a second into the
potential.

Evolution didn't start with humans either. It'e a continues process that start
simple but eventually build something quite extraordinary. Some would say that
biology found a way to reproduce even faster trough technology and the digital
space.

~~~
vlehto
That is strong AI argument. If strong AI happens, I'm not worried about income
inequality, jobs, economy or anything like that.

How world is for humans after that point depends completely how somebody
managed to program ethics and motivation into that AI. That AI probably can
learn and modify itself, so the original designers probably can't even foresee
what is going to happen.

It's impossible to imagine something more intelligent than you. So any science
fiction on the subject is bound to fall short. If we choose to be afraid of
that, only real option is to go full unabomber.

~~~
ThomPete
Long before we reach strong AI will it be affecting what we are talking about
here. Just like no job require all human abilities no robot ai will need to be
general purpose or self aware or strong by any metrics.

There are plenty of alternatives to unanbomber not sure why you think think
thats the only one.

~~~
vlehto
>Long before we reach strong AI will it be affecting what we are talking about
here.

I see absolutely no reason for this. Evolution does not mean development, just
adaptation. It doesn't really predict anything alone. Everything imaginable
about hard AI suggests revolution rather than evolution.

>There are plenty of alternatives to unanbomber

What alternatives? You probably cannot control strong AI in any meaningful way
if it can access internet. Going back to 80's isn't really full unabomber, but
anyhow drastic measure.

~~~
ThomPete
You se no reason for what? That computers keep getting better? That technology
keeps improving beyond were we are now? That AI will improve, that we have
just seen the beginning of what AI allow us to do ex. trough deep learning.

Really?

~~~
vlehto
I see no reason why computers getting better would fundamentally change the
economy. They make everything more efficient, sure. But it's still about
humans trying to gain resources at the individual level. And humans
distributing resources to other humans at systemic level.

Slave trade didn't fundamentally change economy. Except for slaves themselves.
So until human is more intelligent than computer, things should remain the
same.

~~~
ThomPete
Well of course you see no reason for that. You are looking at it from an
economic perspective not a technological one.

And so until you change that perspective you will keep applying the same ideas
of incentives to your thinking.

Humans wont need to either gain resources or distribute it. Instead some will
just own those resources and the system that distributes it sans the humans.

~~~
vlehto
You really wish to win an argument.

------
MIKarlsen
"[...] where fewer and fewer people have the necessary skills to work in the
frontline of its advances"

This is my main concern. Where I'm from, even with a university degree an age
of 27 and over 20 years of school behind me, I'm still in a position where 1/3
of me and my peers will not have a job in the first 6 months after our
graduation. And this scares me quite a lot, because I'm almost out of ideas on
how to improve my skill-set, and just as important, in which direction to make
this improvement.

~~~
rdancer
The scary thing, if you permit me to be frank, is that (1) you count the time
it takes to find a job starting from the graduation, as if the years spent at
college were not the ideal time to get a job lined up, and (2) that the job is
something external that you couldn't possibly create yourself.

~~~
MIKarlsen
Thank you for the answer.

It is not as if people in this situation have not tried. It's perfectly normal
for people in my country to have at least one, and often two internships
during their studies. It is also the norm that most people do have part-time
jobs in addition to their studies. But as the point here is, fewer of us are
needed.

Another "problem" is that if I want to get my education, I'm also bound to
complete the tasks and courses the university tells me to. I can of course
chose my own path, but if you're in my position, and the greater purpose of
what you've been studied does not seem to be a commodity that the job-market
wants, you're forced to develop yourself even further.

This is not a rant or critique, but logically, this is what has to happen,
which is why I also can feel frustrated that I feel like I've done everything
that the society I'm eager to contribute to have asked of me, and still, I'm
told "it's your fault", "you could've started earlier" etc. I have not created
the system I'm about to inherit, and the shameless individualization we're
many times witnessing is frustrating. So much that I've personally had to seek
professional help/counseling in order to be able to complete my studies, which
I know is an increasing problem between me and my peers.

It is also perfectly possible that I've simply chosen to dive into a field
that this "new world order" does not need. So how do we react to that? Should
an economic rationalisation be in control of what education you get? Or is
this simply just a product of the current model that a more limited set of
skills will be driving a much larger part of society in the future?

~~~
rdancer
There's the personal aspect of education, which hopefully makes you a better
person, and there's the professional aspect of education, which makes you more
employable.

The problem is that the two get conflated. The right to tertiary-level
education in the EU (do you live in the EU?) should be for the former. I'm
skeptical, though, that many people are willing to pursue personal development
at the university level. But they want the prestige of being "educated". So we
end up with technical colleges playing at being universities, badly, and
churning out graduates who are unemployable: You get neither personal, nor
professional education. It's of no benefit to you or the society.

I wish I had a good suggestion for a cure to this malaise. Myself, I said:
"fuck it", left my country, went to a top UK uni, dropped out, and started a
business.

~~~
MIKarlsen
I can only envy your drive, because I don't have much left. And yes, I live in
the EU (Denmark).

In this automated world, I would wish I'd spent more time trying to learn a
technical skill, but I'm left purely with analytical skills, which does not
seem to be in high demand at the moment.

~~~
rdancer
Let me just remind you that you seem to be rationalizing your depression as
coming from your professional prospects, which it is not. Because objectively,
opportunity-wise, you are doing all right. You already have one degree, can go
anywhere within EU, and get paid to study for another degree, and another, and
another, until you decide to enter the workforce.

You're not "left" with your degree. People in my parents' generation were done
with studies, and that was it, they could never go back to uni. We can, and we
get paid to do that. That's awesome.

Come and study in UK[1].

[1] [https://www.ucas.com](https://www.ucas.com)

------
rwmj
In other news, why did the "Shaanxi Jiuli Robot Manufacturing" company think
it was a good idea to design its robots to look terrifyingly skeletal?

Edit: from the company's website:
[http://www.sxjlrobot.com/eproductsdisp.asp?id=%2882%29](http://www.sxjlrobot.com/eproductsdisp.asp?id=%2882%29)

~~~
woah
Perhaps they are designed to hunt and kill humans, wearing their flesh as a
suit until it becomes unmistakably putrified and they are forced to kill
again? Just a thought.

------
rasz_pl
>Last week a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a
video showing a tiny drone flying through a lightly forested area at 30mph,
avoiding the trees – all without a pilot, using only its onboard processors.
Of course it can outrun a human-piloted one

except it didnt :(, it barely missed objects few meters in front of it. No
path planning, more like last second panic reaction.

more interesting imo are computers playing games, like defcon CTF
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnyCbU7jGYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnyCbU7jGYA)

~~~
astazangasta
In any case, this is stuff moths can do. There is a long way before humans are
obsolete.

------
sidescroll
Yes, weak A.I (Algorithms) in their currently over-hyped form will allow for
directed capabilities of certain individuals to be heightened above others.
That's why there is so much fanfare over it.

However, I can't say the same for truly strong A.I. Strong A.I is feared most
it seems among the self-titled 'human gods' of our time... Being at the
forefront of one paradigm limits your capability to be of the mindset of the
next. For, we are mere mortals and our brain has troubles with conflicting
paradigms...

Weak A.I will have its time. Strong A.I will have its time.

------
Morendil
"Though it promises robot carers for an ageing population, it also forecasts
huge numbers of jobs being wiped out: up to 35% of all workers in the UK and
47% of those in the US"

...not only are those forecasts not from the cited source (they're from an
Oxford study), they're also not credible:

[https://plus.google.com/u/1/+LaurentBossavit/posts/is8vMdyXb...](https://plus.google.com/u/1/+LaurentBossavit/posts/is8vMdyXbuU)

~~~
wstrange
I think the time-frames of when this will happen are debatable, but not the
general arc of events.

Machines and AI continue to get incrementally better. There is no reason to
think that this incremental progress will magically stop at some threshold
which leaves a large swath of employment for humans to perform.

------
DanielBMarkham
Aside from freedom of speech, movement, association, and thought, people need
three things: energy, data, and means of production. (Housing is a special
case)

Need a doctor? Are you sure? Or do you need access to the appropriate medical
information for the symptoms you have (data), plus production of consumables
that will make you better? (production)

I know folks want to go immediately to a redistribution of wealth discussion,
but I'm not so sure. As everybody wants to point out, with robots, production
is becoming generalized. If the tools are becoming more generic, doesn't it
make sense to start talking about generic solutions?

If I had unlimited energy, unlimited data and data processing capabilities,
and a dozen or so robots that were my own? Seems like I'd have pretty much
anything else in life I needed. You could even make trades: I'll send a couple
of my robots to work on the nearby building construction project in return for
X dollars a week. My neighbor is loaning me a few robots for the weekend for a
big party. In return I'm loaning him some of mine next weekend for a house
remodeling project he has.

Will robots replace us? Or will robots make us all some kind of weird version
of digital slave owners?

------
sawwit
And here I thought the title was literal and expected a Transhumanism piece
that made it into the Guardian.

------
a3n
> He points out that even while some jobs are replaced, new ones spring up
> that focus more on services and interaction with and between people. “The
> fastest-growing occupations in the past five years are all related to
> services,” he tells the Observer. “The two biggest are Zumba instructor and
> personal trainer.”

But who's paying to have a personal trainer? Relatively well paid people. If
we ever do approach the employment singularity, services will be as rare as
people who can pay for them.

------
grondilu
> those gains may be captured by shareholders

Then buy shares. Problem solved.

I mean, this guy makes it sound as if holding shares was some trait that gets
inherited at birth or something. It's (usually) not. Shares are bought, and
since the area of massive unemployment he's talking about is not yet here,
people currently mostly do have jobs thus money, so they could buy shares.

~~~
wstrange
Most of us can not accumulate enough shares to make a meaningful difference.

The corporate elite are gifted millions in shares/options. It's pretty
difficult for someone making 30K a year to compete with that.

~~~
grondilu
Who said anything about competing with them? There are many, many shareholders
who are just regular joes and will probably never become millionaires.

The author whines about wealth going to shareholders. To me that just means
that people should acquire shares.

But of course, feel free to disagree and keep singing. When winter comes I'll
watch you dance.

------
jqm
Humans are already split into a handful of gods and the rest of us based on
economics.

------
fbomb
Who's Al?

------
sildur
I'd prefer "rest of them".

~~~
rdancer
Guarniad is by lefties, for lefties. You are correct.

