Pages:
Author

Topic: Technological unemployment is (almost) here - page 8. (Read 88255 times)

legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1561

Similar to what Bill Gates said, during the same interview when he talked about bitcoin iirc.

But the problem of AI taking over is not necessarily directly related to technological unemployment. Maybe AI will employ every human to do some kind of dirty work for 18 hours a day in exchange for a bowl of rice and glass of water...
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500

Thanks for sharing. But it works only for HU limit hold'em. Impressive, but still a very long way to go before any bot is able to win any major tournament.

Yep, doubt a bot can ever win a non-online tournament, there's too much bluffing and emotions going on.
Whereas online, if it can analyze thousands of games it might find humans extremely predictable...
legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1561

Thanks for sharing. But it works only for HU limit hold'em. Impressive, but still a very long way to go before any bot is able to win any major tournament.
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo

Guys this one is mind blowing :

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_howard_the_wonderful_and_terrifying_implications_of_computers_that_can_learn#

What happens when we teach a computer how to learn? Technologist Jeremy Howard shares some surprising new developments in the fast-moving field of deep learning, a technique that can give computers the ability to learn Chinese, or to recognize objects in photos, or to help think through a medical diagnosis. (One deep learning tool, after watching hours of YouTube, taught itself the concept of “cats.”) Get caught up on a field that will change the way the computers around you behave … sooner than you probably think.


... more mind blowing is the number of humans that refuse to be taught how to learn ... maybe bread and circuses can be used to turn the AI's into useless obedient slothful servant drones also?
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1131
 
Guys this one is mind blowing :

http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_howard_the_wonderful_and_terrifying_implications_of_computers_that_can_learn#

What happens when we teach a computer how to learn? Technologist Jeremy Howard shares some surprising new developments in the fast-moving field of deep learning, a technique that can give computers the ability to learn Chinese, or to recognize objects in photos, or to help think through a medical diagnosis. (One deep learning tool, after watching hours of YouTube, taught itself the concept of “cats.”) Get caught up on a field that will change the way the computers around you behave … sooner than you probably think.
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
December 18, 2014, 06:52:04 AM

As I mentioned in this thread before, the idea of guaranteed minimum income depends entirely on the ability to confiscate income elsewhere, or print new money, which if bitcoin takes over will be made impossible.

Perhaps in the future our society will change to believe that some humans have worth, and others are worthless, instead of the every life is worth the same idea we have now?

That sounds like sarcasm. You don't have to evaluate people. You just need to respect their rights. That's all.

Their rights to keep what they earn? Or their rights to take other people's personal stuff by force because they have a "right" to it?

Their rights to keep what they earn.

hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 661
December 18, 2014, 06:23:45 AM
Quote
That sounds like sarcasm. You don't have to evaluate people. You just need to respect their rights. That's all.

For all rights you have to ask : "if the government enforces such right, who will pay the bill ?"
The only right forcing to no one to pay for the bill of another is the right to keep the value you create.

This is the difference between "enforcing" the right, and "protecting" it.

legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
December 17, 2014, 11:44:27 PM

As I mentioned in this thread before, the idea of guaranteed minimum income depends entirely on the ability to confiscate income elsewhere, or print new money, which if bitcoin takes over will be made impossible.

Perhaps in the future our society will change to believe that some humans have worth, and others are worthless, instead of the every life is worth the same idea we have now?

That sounds like sarcasm. You don't have to evaluate people. You just need to respect their rights. That's all.

Their rights to keep what they earn? Or their rights to take other people's personal stuff by force because they have a "right" to it?
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
December 16, 2014, 07:24:53 PM

As I mentioned in this thread before, the idea of guaranteed minimum income depends entirely on the ability to confiscate income elsewhere, or print new money, which if bitcoin takes over will be made impossible.

Perhaps in the future our society will change to believe that some humans have worth, and others are worthless, instead of the every life is worth the same idea we have now?

That sounds like sarcasm. You don't have to evaluate people. You just need to respect their rights. That's all.
legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
December 16, 2014, 05:20:30 PM
... are we (almost) there yet?
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
December 16, 2014, 05:18:14 PM

As I mentioned in this thread before, the idea of guaranteed minimum income depends entirely on the ability to confiscate income elsewhere, or print new money, which if bitcoin takes over will be made impossible.

Perhaps in the future our society will change to believe that some humans have worth, and others are worthless, instead of the every life is worth the same idea we have now?
legendary
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1090
=== NODE IS OK! ==
December 16, 2014, 08:10:23 AM
I have two jobs. People in cities think that "someone has an obligation to employ them".
Well, it is not my poroblem that you in the USA are spending money on war and corruption instead of education and spreading this paradigm across the globe. I don't need this and not even my employer. I can manage. Also, I can buy a gun.
full member
Activity: 173
Merit: 105
December 15, 2014, 08:32:30 PM
Unemployment is an artificially created situation used by governments to keep the employment market competitive and wages low.
It's easy to solve n% unemployment if you want to - just make everyone work n% less and thus create n% more work.

Precisely what happened in the United States with the new healthcare law. Employment numbers look great though!
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 661
December 12, 2014, 07:28:11 PM
Non Aggression Principle
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1131
December 12, 2014, 01:10:42 PM
There is absolutely no way to reconcile a guaranteed income with libertarianism without breaking NAP.

Sorry, what does NAP mean ?
hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 661
December 12, 2014, 11:13:39 AM

I agree that a guaranteed minimum income, that does not disappear if someone decide to work, is better than the current system, but the idea can't be possibly reconciled with libertarianism, and the effect would be to make everything more costly.

It amazes me that everybody claims Hayek said that, but I have yet to see the actual source of it.
Try to find this statement in Hayek's books.... People says he said that but no source pointing to one of his own essays.

Hayek had the habit to give arguments supporting his claims... but for this one strangely he didn't, and people only speculates about his arguments. (WTF?!)

Also, the effect of such policy would be null, if the average Income is 5000, and the minimum one is 3000 of that average income, then prices will just be (3000/5000) * 100 = 60% higher than without it...

There is absolutely no way to reconcile a guaranteed income with libertarianism without breaking NAP.
legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1131
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
November 10, 2014, 02:19:21 PM
And that's why the counts in the old days had their own small armies.

Nowadays they're private security services, so things haven't changed much.

But you have to remember that bitcoin is the capital. It may become more valuable in the near future, but at some point that increase in value will stagnate, and if you use your bitcoins for buying goods that doesn't generate income you will eventually run out of bitcoins. Land generates income, so does rent on money lent.

As you said, rent on money lent. I already lend my bitcoins through https://bitlendingclub.com, and invest it in projects I think will give me a good return. You are absolutely right that if you just sit on the money and spend it on goods, you'll eventually run out. Millionaires that inherit their money without business tagging, and people with no business or finance training who win the lottery, often lose all their money rather quickly, and sometimes end up in worse debt than before they got all that money.
As I said, it's not the asset, it's what's between your ears (brain) and how you use it. Even if you have zero assets, you can always use your knowledge and intelligence to do some work and earn more assets. It's one of the reasons I quit my job and went off on my own: even if I lose all my money, I still have the skills and knowledge that will let me easily get another job and make more.

Besides, the world is not increasingly hostile, it's in fact the very opposite. We have never lived in a more peaceful time, ever.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/07/143285836/war-and-violence-on-the-decline-in-modern-times

When i said hostile, i didn't mean the general population. I meant the systems in power, with things like Cyprus, NSA, bail-ins being legalized in Europe and version of that in USA, people in Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, Argentina, and China being increasingly upset at their leadership, and their leadership getting more oppressive to try to hold onto power, and if adoption of bitcoin leads to tax revenue shortages, or even just inflationary currencies end up not being able to sustain social programs governments pay for, all those people with comfortable safety nets and "free" government provided services will be quite angry, and start looking for wealthy scapegoats to go after. They are already complaining that wealthy people are not paying enough taxes, and that they "owe society" because society provided them with police protection, roads, educated work force, etc, while ignoring that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of total tax, and thus are the ones paying for those things already, and that the useless idiots making those complaints are not "society," but individuals who want more stuff for themselves.
Pages:
Jump to: