Why does this
>Because of automation we need socialism now
meme keep comming back?
Every few decades since the industrial revolution started people start screeching about automation and how there will be no jobs for humans in the future and why we need to act now.
The latest fashion is that because of AI we need universal basic income because some rich guy said so.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
TL;DR
>why are commies so retarded
Because they want free shit and reasons can always be made up on the spot to back up the wants.
They also promise people won't have to work so much and so hard, yet it's quite the opposite.
WHY DO THE CHILDREN HAVE NO EYES??
Im an industrial engineer for automation :)
I think my small german company with 40 workers or so cost like 3k people their jobs. We work with ultrasonic curting robots btw
Cutting*
It's labor shortage in my country.
Everybody can get a job easily. Thanks Abe.
It might happen one day maybe.
But do we need to because of this give everyone a universal basic income? If you take the nesseserty to work of most people they fall into a deep void. Also why now and why not when we get there if we ever do.
Just rename the existing welfare system to UBI and change a few legal terms to apply for it. Costs absolutely nothing, creates the illusion of safety and altruistic attitude towards the sheeple and keeps the stupid fucks where they belong. Whats to hate?
Looks like we've got another brainlet. Hey, retard, it's not that because of automation people are talking about socialism. What are you, retarded? People always use excuses to shill for socialism.
Any time anything happens, Socialists shill for socialism.
>someone gets pregnant
>AH SEE! THIS IS WHY WE NEED SOCIALISM!
>accident happens
>SEE!?!??! SOCIALISM!!! WE NEED IT
>jobs get automated
>SEEE!!?!?!?! WE NEED SOCIALISM NOW!!! NOW!!
Any time anything happens the Socialist has an answer, it's to take money away from everyone and just throw that money at the problem until it goes away.
Socialists are one trick ponies. Their entire ideology is just taking from people, putting that money into a big pile and every time there is a problem they have a big pile of money to spend to fix the problem.
Cheap? Is the current welfare system cheap?
Whats to hate?
I have to pay for it.
It ruins peoples lives.
It slowly destroys a society.
It is fairly cheap compared to what it would cost to pay for these idiots to do unnecessary work. You can execute UBI with lower budget because there would not be as much bureucracy incolved than there is now, thus lowering the overall tax burden needed to cover expenses now. If one cannot adapt to the ever changing requirements of the world then they will fail on life in any case, imho it's just best to ignore such hindrances to advancement and let them live on some la-la land and try to benefit off them on one way or another. Just throw pennies at them and look them run
quick bump I have a reply I'm working on
thanks
Below I use the phrase "no value." This mean only relative to the production and maintenance automation economy itself i.e. designers and manufacturers, NOT consumers and not participants in other economies (e.g. entertainment, art, whatever). Merely a shorthand.
Basically we need a society of high IQ people. If the standard deviation of IQ is about 15 points, then we're talking about relying on a population of 120+ IQ people of around 9% of the population. But to think of it the other way, for every new worker we need to run the automation economy, we will end up creating 10 people of no value to the automation economy.
The numbers are even worse when you consider that this is largely due to the influence of whites on the mean and standard deviation. As more and more of the world is black, muslim, and hispanic, and fewer and fewer whites and asians relative to the total population, we could find ourselves in a scenario where the production of one worker to drive the automation economy might require 13 or more people of no value.
This fact is NEVER mentioned because the topic of IQ is a leftie no-go zone.
But it gets worse still, because to product that one in X we need to have a solid education system which can locate and propel these individuals. So there will be much attrition because we miss some very smart people in the selection process of education. So we might end up going from 1 in 10 (white) to 1 in 13 (mud society) to 1 in 15 (false negatives in the education system).
......
>The latest fashion is that because of AI we need universal basic income because some rich guy said so.
>some rich guy said so
Pretty sure most rich people would be against the idea whereas poor people wouldn't really mind. Refute the idea on it's merits please, assuming only 10% of the population will be employable, why shouldn't the rest have some sort of safety net?
Wow, that can't be unseen. Why was the past so fucking spooky?
cont
Right now the only systems we know of for finding and promoting people are socialist systems. If every high-IQ person we find can and does support 10 others, even if that is indirect through the market, then it's vital to overall resource use to find as many of these people as we can as soon as possible so they can produce as much as they can for as long as they can.
In this I assume we don't go on mass killing sprees of 18 year-olds that fail to make the cut in high school. As much of a solution as it is, I don't believe any society could stand with such a callous disregard for life.
Anyway, we know the real problem is how poorly socialist systems actually allocate resources. In that sense we have to discount even further, for not only will we have some false negatives where smart people aren't captured, but we also have the case where smart people underperform in shitty public schools. The magnitude of this effect is probably pretty large and we could end up in a scenario where we have to create something like 17 people for every 1 high-IQ person we capture.
In my opinion, if something else isn't done to drastically change IQ, we are seeing the limit of humanity. Eventually the losses are so great that it doesn't matter how many people we produce, we cannot capture any more smart people to run the world. I do not believe the /sci/ wet dream of technocratic authoritarianism would help anything because it doesn't solve the numbers problem. If we don't integrate with our AI or start messing with our genes to increase IQ we're pretty much going to hit some real limit of genius production and therefore a real limit on the size of any coherent human system.
Embrace the void my Son!
The automation meme was a direct response to Trump saying "I'm going to bring jobs back." It was to imply that the jobs weren't coming back. It is pushed by the same people who say we need more illegals to do jobs Americans won't do. There are always contradictory reasons for stopping illegal immigrants an limiting trade and they are always put forward by the people who most want to keep those policies in place.
the rich guy said so was a reference to elon musk but yes this idea is more popular amonst poor than the rich.
Why should they have a "safety" net? Or is it really a safetynet and not a way to drive them into even deeper misery. Look at people who recieve welfare for a long they loose all drive to do anything, look at what welfare has done to the black US population 50 years ago they were just poor and low IQ now they are both of that plus criminals and lazy. No one is entitled to another mans wealth.
You have an interesting collectivist way of thinking
What is collectivist about what I am saying? I am advocating for the exact opposite. Or is it because I lumped all black people togehter for the sake of an argument.
I'm an Automation Engineer from the US as well, greetings! Nice to see some good folk here on this cesspool.
But yeah Automation will never truly replace human beings even to rudimentary tasks. The machines can only be as smart as they are programmed and there's an endless amount of different types of inspections to ensure quality and the correct process.
However to say that machines haven't replaced actual jobs is ridiculous.
Example of this, you can now put a sensor in an assembly bin that feeds parts, back in the days these would have to be dumped or hand feed into a machine. Now a days the sensor can detect when this bin is empty and turn on the dumpers by itself. An AGV (Automated Guided Vehicle) can come pick up the empty pack, and another AGV can bring in a new pack of parts for the next time.
This is already happening now in the United States FYI.
Because Millennials.
They are too lazy to work.
So they are hoping something magical will happen so they can keep playing video games all their life.
Ironically automation will likely bring MORE work to Western countries.
Think of all the stuff currently made in China which can be made in Western factories providing all sorts of spinoff jobs?
I Agree with you there are people who are leecher
i work self 22 years but i would have nothing agains extra money from state! I Become Tax Return,it´s good money but Basic Income or if you will Universal income would be something what everbody can benefit! Btw People are not only lazy there are many people who would become productive with extra cash!
The question is, what will an 80% automated economy look like, for instance? That is, a society where there is an 80% unemployment rate, because there simply are insufficient jobs that demand human labor. Do the 20% only sell to that same 20%? You get a massive contraction in quantity of goods sold, and the associated diseconomy of scale.
Also, if this happens within a single generation, you better believe those 80% won't quietly starve to death. Gassing them all is unlikely to be a politically viable solution.
Or on the flip side, do you feel like donning your power armor and autocannon and preparing for a firefight with starving mobs of raiders every time you step out your front door to go to work? It's unlikely that many do. UBI seems to be the least bloody solution, a sort of Danegeld to the filthy poors so they don't fuck up your nice shit, and a temporary measure until almost full automation is reached and we can have glorious Culture-style superabundance.
The current education system in the U.S. is on the verge of collapse. The collegiate system is in a bubble driven by government backed student loans that is beginning to fail as people realize the bullshit degrees they've mortgaged their future for are worthless and younger people are refusing to enter the system. i know the trade school thing is a meme, but some of the most intelligent people I personally know are tradesmen. You have to be above average intelligence to work for decades with complex machinery that can kill you in an instant and survive. The irony to me is that OSHA is a socialist attempt to prevent natural selection in an industrial setting. If your a certified electrician and do something stupid, you die a horrible death as you are baked alive fro the inside out. As to the masses of no value: over use of antibiotics may make that question moot. Gonorrhea and Syphilis have already developed drug resistant and drug immune strains. AIDS is still deadly without a cocktail of drugs to keep it in check. The Ebola outbreak of 2016 killed nearly 30,000 people in Africa and was only stopped by nearly superhuman efforts by the West. That is going to happen again. The population of Africa continues to grow at an unsustainable rate on foreign aid. When the next big Ebola outbreak sweeps the continent, it is unlikely we will have the resources to stop it, even if we have the will. As western civilization crashes, it will take a large percentage of the world's population with it.
>machines can only be as smart as they are programmed
What happens when the machine programs itself?
>Why should they have a "safety" net?
For one, I want less criminals in my society and I care about the welfare of my people. Look at what welfare has done for blacks in Germany and Sweden, they're normal citizens. This has nothing to do with the question at hand though, welfare in the past can't be compared to the impact AI will have on employment etc, if you seriously think you can just let the free market have it's toll in a scenario where 30-90% of people won't be employable, what do you expect will happen? Should they all work as prostitutes or for wages close to 1$/hour to compete with the AI? Should we reduce our fellow countrymen to that of present day chinese factory laborers? How about fuck that
Notice how all those kids are looking up? They're watching for balls.
A better example of machines replacing humans is in the coal industry.
When Trump talks about bringing back "coal jobs" he's apparently talking about pic related.
People think the government is actually looking out for their best interests. They actually believe if shit hits the fan papa government is going to give them a little something to get by instead of just exiling them to a tent city to die.
MAGA 1776
I work in an industrial setting. I've been with my current company for 12 years. When I started, the job I did required three people. I now do it alone. The machine I ran with two other people in 2005 was about the size of a small truck. The machine I run and maintain now is the size of a two level 1300 square foot house and runs at a rate 10 times faster than the machine it replaced. It requires an understanding of basic programming, electrical work and mechanical engineering to maintain and run properly. My I.Q. is in the low 120's and most of my coworkers are as intelligent as I am or are smarter, with several exceptions that apparently slipped through the pre-employment testing, including at least a couple diversity hires.
AI is something I'm not that familiar with but I doubt it would ever be able to replace human intelligence in our lifetime or even the next generation's.
That being said there is a limitation with purely software AI (ie an adaptive AI in a video game) vs an AI that interacts with physical reality using hardware (ie learning robots, or even autopilot systems kinda)
AI that has to interact with reality is already limited to what it can use, so it can learn based off the hardware it's given. To put into perspective of how limiting this type of thing is most modern day vision systems used in automation don't even run in actual HD resolution.
There's many physical limiting factors to automation as well as programming ones. I don't think it's NOT possible, just not possible within our lifetime from what I understand.
Even today there are certain basic inspections that can be 'tricked' or passed from certain conditions, those become a new challenge for Engineers to rectify. And those are just the ones we know, there's more that we don't even know. We can think about hundreds possibilities a problem can occur and still miss one that defeats the system.
Also dont forget about vision! The fanuc vision is amazing for quality checks on produced parts.
Of course they will be people who would still work and improve society but those are the ones who are getting by anyway.
All this aside ther is still the issue of financing the whole operation. If you would give every citizen 1500$ per month to live you would need to generate the same amount in taxes wich means in some way or another things will get more expensive wich in return makes the 1500$ less liveable wich means you have to increase that rate wich... I think you guys get what I mean.
I am not arguing against the fact that some day there will be massive unemployment but the measures that people propose to "fix" that (UBI) are not the way to go.
I also doubt that a situation like this will come in my lifetime. Capitalism has opened doors to empolyment we could have never dreamed of and will do so in the future. So far there are no signs that we will get rising unemployment. In high developed nations there is still a big demand for low skilled labor. Those jobs are often unoccupied or done by immigrants because people have an alternative: welfare.
Oh... If by future you mean a nation of imperialist pigs thats only use for a foundation in science is for weaponry and not medical technology like a true future society would be then yes. If you mean a future society that would rather blow people up with nukes than save dying countries then yes. If you mean a future where we elect an orange haired bafoon into the white house off of spiteful rhetoric then yes. That is your future. But that is not MY future
>Every few decades since the industrial revolution started people start screeching about automation and how there will be no jobs for humans
Let's see the source for that
>robots/ai now becoming mainstream in virtually all aspects of the job market
Explain to me how that is even remotely similar to manufacturing automation of the 19th and early/mid 20th centuries.
Every job sector is now at risk of automation in some capacity.
> I care about the welfare of my people
very good. So do other people, no need for a mandatory safety net.
All I argue for that assuming we get there one day that we don't dump a bunch of money on the problem (that we dont have).
Automation is in a race against time with demographic decline. Automation is insanely expensive and it is very difficult to get a return on your investment without large swathes of your consumer base dying of old age.
Immigration is meant to do two things. Maintain the consumer base necessary to grow the economy... And as a hedge against automation failure, which looms more likely as time passes.
Automated systems are less productive than humans on average. The newly automated rail mounted gantries at Deltaport will move 1/5th the total cargo of manned cranes in service right now... If the company decides to go ahead with automation.
Replacing man with robots seems like an important step in insuring a future for mankind in an age of dwindling populations... But it's not going to remain financially feasible much longer. As said, when the boomers die, the population will shrink massively... This is a concern for most nations, which struggle to meet replacement rates.
Nations that cannot maintain replacement populations are all competing for immigrants and as a result, no nation will get enough of the quality needed to maintain a high tech civilization... As you can see in the map, the only surplus population are in shit holes.
So, what is going to happen? Our populations will shrink. Automation will fail as it becomes financially infeasible. And we will see our economic fucking implode... We are reverting to a previous style of doing business, not progressing into some Star Trek future. Regression is happening. Even antibiotics are failing to work. Our society was a bubble in time and the onus needs to be placed on maintaining technological growth, sure... But commercially? Robots aren't going to make financial sense.
Tl;Dr the consumer base is going to be too small in the future to justify spending so much on robots... So they're going to ship in a bunch of third world laborers to do the jobs instead.
Yea humans will work less and for less hours and there will be socialism. Should be great, you'll get to experience the world more.
At the same time I'd say that people should still study, stay fit and work on personal projects so they can handle a break-down too.l
>The current education system in the U.S. is on the verge of collapse. The collegiate system is in a bubble driven by government backed student loans that is beginning to fail as people realize the bullshit degrees they've mortgaged their future for are worthless and younger people are refusing to enter the system.
I agree. Bachelor's and higher degrees are definitely becoming losing propositions for almost everyone in the US. This is bad news for the future of the US. China will not be making that mistake. India seems to be, though.
> As western civilization crashes, it will take a large percentage of the world's population with it.
Well presumably the total collapse of the west is something we find of personal interest to avoid.
en.wikipedia.org
I don't have any more sources right now because I don't have the books at hand but automation raised similar concerns in the 1930s and 1970 with the rise of the ditital age.
It is similar because repetetive tasks are getting automated. Taking orders or driving trucks are fairly simple tasks and very common and are therefore getting replaced.
Smaller production quantities and repair work is not getting automater because humans learn faster and cheaper.
Almost everything can be automated now but its all a matter of cost. As long as humans are cheaper they will have work.
>socialist systems
You now that socialist systems have no problems with eradication of people they perceive as useless for economy? So when all these 90% of dumb vote for socialism that actually vote for their eventual eradication at industrial scale.
What happens if the machine is a fucking idiot, though? A lot of assumptions about our technology are based on science fiction, not science fact. The reality is that our technology is good... But not that fucking good. We still aren't where we want to be and in fifteen to twenty years when the largest consumer base in the history of man, the boomers, are either dead or on fixed incomes, we will not be able to afford the same kind of technological innovation that we can now.
These robots (at least in my plant) must attended to constantly for many small things. The machines they interact with fail. Broken prox switches. Bad valves. Belts. Etc. We are no where close to full automation yet.
The Soviet Union literally promised fully automated luxury space gay communism. It's an old meme that has existed for a very long time. You would be shocked to learn that we are still talking about the same shit that our great grandparents were at the turn of the century.
Automation will ONE DAY result in socialism because eventually there will be no need for actual human work beyond the absolute razors edge of science, exploration and thinking (that will 100% be AI-augmented, likely with extreme genetic enhancements too, on a level that are beyond human).
But that is then, not now.
These gun-jumping purple-haired retards pushing that for today's world are insane.
We still need capitalism, and these short sighted fucknuts who think capitalism is evil don't understand that it will lead them to their fantasy, all they have to do is be fucking patient.
But of course they can't do that for the very same reason they believe so heavily in socialism in the first place; because they're fucking children. Pathetic little children who are impatient, have temper-tantrums, were never told no by mommy and daddy, and they want their star-trek-level socialist utopia now, now, now!!
>You now that socialist systems have no problems with eradication of people they perceive as useless for economy?
Communist systems, yes. But there are other filters in communist systems which prevent them from reaching the optimal selection rate themselves.
As I say, I've never heard anyone address the issue of production of high-IQ people so no social organizational system seems to me to yet be optimized for long-term survival.
>The Soviet Union literally promised fully automated luxury space gay communism.
No this was a trap. Basis of Communism may promise only hard work and no rest. See if the people stop working they become parasite class like capitalist and robotic proletariat revolution becomes historical inevitability
I agree with you. It's still cheaper to bring in guest workers or immigrants to to brickwork jobs.
In the future though, I can see that changing. I'm 50 years old. I remember the pre-computer days. I remember watching an apple 2 play chess (10 minutes per move) and thought that so amazing, I wasted an entire lunch period standing im a classroom with about 75 other people to watch it play on an overhead TV.
Never did I expect to be typing like this on a hand computer, connected to network as I ride on west coast car ferry on my way home from work.
>My opinion?
Automation will combine with direct human oversight to do more than machines or humans can alone. Just as has happened in the world of chess.
That's another issue altogether. In my industry, automation has only lead to the eradication of the work force at one site, which still employs trades and laborers, but not to the extent it once did.
At the others, the work force has remained the same or has grown. I'm not optimistic about automation. I'm already hearing regrets at some terminals because automated systems are extremely unproductive and dumb as shit... The pay out for these systems was extreme and it is unlikely that they are going to see a return on investment any time soon, especially with the machines being slower than advertised.
Automation experts and engineers are blowing a lot of smoke up our assets in order to create a market... It's yet to be seen if it's a scam or not, but the growing pains for automated business are obvious.
If automation goes off smoothly, which is what everyone is betting on, you'll see our work force becoming more productive on a per capita basis. Instead of a man driving a single truck, he will oversee the routes of five or six or more.
But automation is really depending on everything to go smoothly. If there are too many snags or it just doesn't produce as advertised, the jig is up. Hopefully in 50 years, it will have worked out... But I'm not going to get optimistic.
Pretending thousands of new careers won't be created and that its a crime the obsolete jobs of the past are gotten rid of.
>Communist systems, yes.
And all others are not real socialists. See there is no critical difference in the theoretical foundation between most hardcore economic neoliberal and so called "European socialism". they only argue about percentage of wealth transfer and funny enough economic Neoliberalism is more or less neutral about matter of wealth transfer as it doesn't impacts principles behind market economy.
tl;dr non Marxist socialists and Neoliberalists (aka mainstream) are the same people therefore non Marxist socialists don't exit.
I'm not interested in whether something counts as "real" socialism or not. I'm interested in the very problem I presented, namely, the production and capture of high-IQ individuals.
SHIIIEEET new creepy pasta confirmed
with automation there should be no central government or the need to be taxed to support it.
This being pushed by a consultancy called McKinsey. Their business model is to create a whole bunch of FUD about the future and then sell certainty back to companies at a profit. The whole Machine Learning meme can be safely ignored.
But who would solve this problem?
Marxist solution is to kill dumb people.
Outside Marxism only capitalism exists (non Marxist socialist are just capitalists under different brand) and you are saying that capitalism can't solve this problem.
Yes. I can see it taking at least that long. Also, because it impacts some jobs more than others, and some of those jobs are impacted unexpected ways, the road ahead will be far from smooth or predictable.
Who in my youth, would have imagined the decline of the record store, or that it is easier today to automate the job of a medical intern than that of a construction worker. Many white collar are going to go away long before those of the working stiff.
I'm in transportation. The holy grail of the self driving truck has been on the horizon for a few years now. Yet today it's easier to automate the dispatcher / controller office job than it is the driver. Where before we needed one office employee for 10 trucks, today we need 1 for 50. Much of what he or she does could be further refined, it's just not cost effective.
By automation engineer I assume you mean PLC, Siemens, Allen Bradley, etc.
Being in that industry for a job, I feel like the people there were underestimating AI. Sure a PLC program is rigid, but deep learning neural networks are giving machines the ability to learn through experience. Also, improving sensors and batteries will further improve machine autonomy.
I'm aware that people in the past talking about automation replacing workers were short-sighted as new industries and skills came about.
While this will happen again, it will create for the first time a net negative in job creation since now machines can not only move autonomously but THINK autonomously.
Idk why people want to be working wage slave tards. Everyone bitches about work anyway. Let the machines do it and make SURE that taxation is in place on companies using these robots for the UBI.
Robotics and automation are the natural result of our technological innovation and capitalism.
>But who would solve this problem?
I don't know. I'm not even convinced there is a solution other than what I suggested, augmentation or genetic experimentation. If we can shift the bell curve in any way the severity of the problem decreases very quickly. Even moving the mean IQ 5 points would make a big difference.
I am going to be replaced by a robot. But my devotion to market economics makes me believe this is a good thing.
As an aside: Productivity has been going up for decades, centuries even.
In the 1960s you might have thought: "Gee, productivity is expect to keep shooting up. By the 2010s people will only have to work a few hours a day!" But you'd have been wrong.
Because leftists today don't actually want "socialism," they just want free stuff without ever having to work. They assume that with automation this would be how the economy functions.
>UBI
Aka the 1% giving their pocket change to the 99% so that the 99% can spend it on the products of the 1%.
Yes, UBI is just the neoliberal solution to collapsing demand
Deep learning is a meme. I work as a software engineer, neural networks sure can be handy in certain applications (image recognition, for example) but are still utterly helpless in most.
We're still very far from any kind of useful AI in most industry applications and "thinking" general AI is science fiction for the time being.
>Outside Marxism only capitalism exists
Brainlet detected
The alternative? Getting 1% of their pocket change for wages, working 50-60 hours a week, and not be able to afford to retire. Same shit.
The difference is since people are spooked by robots to begin with I feel that there will be support across the political spectrum among plebs for these people not employing anyone to pay more in taxes or else torches.
The 1% will be more than happy to implement a UBI so long as they know that the political and economic infrastructure is in place to maintain their monopoly. I.e. genuine competition will be minimised.
Why are socialists so opposed to the reality of some people being rich? It's been the natural state of things since the dawn of humanity. Arguably it's better now, because most ways of using violence to get rich have been made illegal and if they happen they're very rare.
I work with the technology too. Yes it can be meme for now. I cannot tell you how many hours I would spend training an image system to recognize some simple object, and I would be like "stupid fckin machine".
Regardless I think it will scale up much quicker than you realize. Corporations are fiending for AI and are throwing R&D money to scale it up quicker. It only took 10 years for the bulky PC to get a small iPhone in your pocket.
If that were the only consequence I agree they would probably go along with it. But 90% of the population being idle is asking for social collapse in about one year.
That camera may have a very slow shutter speed. The kinds of cameras where you had to stay perfectly still for 5, 10, or even 15 seconds. Maybe longer, though that's going back further.
Likely those boys were told to stay perfectly still so the picture could be taken, but they were not told to not blink. Their blinking eyes would "smudge" the image. Specifically the image of their eyes.
>The alternative?
There isn't one.
The capitalists are motivated by profit and profit alone. If automation increases profit for the 1%, they'll do it even if it means redundancy for the 99%. Of course the 99% are still the consumers, so they'll be given whatever level of UBI generates the most profit for the 1%.
Even with a UBI, it might still be profitable for the 1% to make workers work 40 hours a week. So don't expect some utopia where we all get to relax all day.
Try oi find any thing that non-Marxists say and you find that is encompassed in the based neoliberalism. It can explain why you need dissolve monopolies (market failure), it can explain why you need to take money from rich and give them to poor (marginal utility of money within different income brackets), it explains everything really. Except why you need to kill all capitalists but only Marx says that.
>Deep learning is a meme.
For now the phenomenological problems persist. But someone managed to produce a professional-destroying go player basically out of thin air using nothing particularly novel as far as machine learning goes. It's quite possible all the pieces are here and no one sees the simple way to put them together just so. On the other hand it's possible there's something new that needs to be developed.
On the third hard, true AI may be impossible or at least radically more difficult than we imagine because what we require of AI (ridiculous accuracy relative to humans) may constrain it so much that "deep" learning is ultimately impossible. I mean the only selective pressure in evolution of note is "survives long enough to reproduce". We put considerably more constraints on our creations in such a way that it's at least possible no intelligent behavior in the deep sense can occur.
>deep learning neural networks
Please don't use words you don't understand.
What are you talking about? I'm all for getting rid of unnecessary jobs but let's not pretend that once all the manual labor and most service occupations are gone that the sub-95 IQ peeps will be able to just boost their IQ by 20 points and start working on the jobs not yet taken by the AI. Far enough down the line not even high IQ people will be needed since the AI will be able to code better and more flawlessly and do just about anything barring a few occupations like maybe psychology where people prefer humans.
>Why are socialists so opposed to the reality of some people being rich?
There are good ways to get rich and bad ways.
Boosting your CEO bonus by lobbying government to open the borders to the third world and bring in cheap labour isn't a good way of getting rich, for example. But it's what you'd expect to happen and indeed it is what happens. In fact I think it's literally law that companies have to do what is best for shareholders, which means increasing profit, which means open borders.
That is definitely a possibility. That's where there needs to be checks and balances to make sure the taxation rate is high enough and not screwed over by lobbyists. That's where I think Joe Main Street will have pitch forks standing side by side with SJW cuck Joe who both don't have jobs demanding a higher UBI.
I don't see how corporations would make it profitable to still have a large workforce. Having done cost analysis for robots, they're MUCH cheaper. They can always work, no benefits, and no salary. Just an upfront investment that is growing smaller every year as the industry scales up and costs drop.
Of course the people in power need to balance massive in-built inequality with mass popular unrest.
I use TensorFlow fuck off n00b
Because most powerful drives fro the human nature are deadly sins. Envy, anger and murder are very good motivators to get crowds approval.
I don't mind people getting rich from their own work.
But reality is that money makes more money and hard work just makes you tired.
And it's not because of some natural state of being.
It's because of the tax code which taxes labor the most and profits from investments the least.
We need to revamp our educational system. Why should someone "need" to attain a four year degree, when it could be cut in half by eliminating the "core curriculum"? Core curriculum are as follows: English 1&2, History 1&2, Speech, Art, P.E., basic economics, Political Science 1&2, etc. These are all classes that most students accomplish in high school, so why are we being forced to take them to attain a Bachelor's degree?
The reason is because our FASFA grants will cover them. We need to immediately eliminate FASFA grants covering everything but the following: STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Mathematics). I would also make an exception for the following curriculum: Business (Finance, Accounting, Economics, Statistics), Law, & other minor civil service degrees. Emphasis needs to be placed on determining relevant curriculum that will actually positively stimulate our workforce and allow citizens to be hired.
By eliminating the ability to cover all other curriculum, we can create relevant works in half the time (2 years instead of 4.) In addition to this, we should also change the definition of our welfare system. We should create more of a "Workfare" system. One that will temporarily pay people to go to classes that FASFA grants will cover. When I say "classes", I mean relevant training programs in the 20-30 most needed non-degree specific programs. Examples follow: Electrician, Mechanic, Civil Service career training, operating machinery within major manufacturer plants, etc.
Doing this will also retrain peoples who's original career choice was made irrelevant due to automation and the development of technology. The most important thing to remember is this: Higher education has become a 30 billion dollar a year business, don't think for a second that they wouldn't throw citizens under the bus to receive government FASFA money.
A big problem I see with mass joblessness is government banning work that isn't in the service of the big monopolies.
Once everyone is jobless, you might expect people to essentially opt out of this society and found their own community-oriented businesses which still offer work to the locals. Community organisation might arise. But this will be stopped by governments who will essentially have so much regulation in place that such businesses won't be eligible for operation permits. The trope of the shutting down by police of lemonade stands run by children springs to mind.
Getting rid of humanities in curriculum will produce loads of easily manipulated, bored to death masses.
It might sound tempting to teach children only the "useful" stuff, but keep in mind that we're teaching humans there, not machines. I'd actually argue for more philosophy and more history in schools. If we don't teach people how to properly think for themselves and how to interpret incoming information we're going to have a generation of nihilists that don't value their heritage, family and believe in everything you try to shove down their throats.
That's what's hapening right now. Hordes of depressed people with no reason to live and no sense of companionship with people around them.
only lemonade stands run by whites, though, so minority lemonade stands have a chance
I'm not arguing against that at all. I agree with you entirely. What I'm saying is, that needs to be done within high school. Our "common core" is absolutely atrocious and our educational standards have dropped significantly to accommodate those who are unable to meet them. By the time someone reaches the required age to attend a university, they are already adults and should have learned how to think for themselves. I stand by my notion of eliminating that curriculum at the university level; but I completely agree with you that our high schools need to teach our students how to "think" for themselves better and analyze information, instead of just conforming to dominant opinion.
tl;dr
We need to revamp our high school "common core" too, instead of continually lowering the standard to accommodate the lowest standard within our country (i.e. find a better way of raising the lowest standards to an acceptable standard, instead of lowering the standard as a whole to accommodate them.)
>why shouldn't the rest have some sort of safety net?
you let nature take its course, let the nogs and white trash starve