Will Advancements in Technology Lead to a Jobless Future?

[Leaping antalope]

"It seems likely that, at some time in the future, machines will be able to do most of te jobs people do today. We may face a future of jobless growth--a time when productivity increases not because of the work people do but because of the work of machines."
If this really happen in the future, who would be more valuable? human beings (because we create those robots and computers) , or the robots and computers (because they are the ones who are producing most of the sociey's good and services)?
Would human beings become stupid because the majority of us are not donig work at all? If technology makes people stupid, should we still continue to chase for advanced technology?

Quotation from: "Computer Confluence-Exploring Tomorrow's Technology", by George Beekman & Eugene J. Rathswohl

 

[graphic7]

Well, first off, I doubt we would become non-valuable at any point. Someone will always have to maintain that technology, whether that be robots or computers.

Second of all, I believe we're pretty far off to becoming close to non-valuable as far as the rate at which we are progressing when it comes to techonology.

Thus, the most we can do is speculate, which is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Anttech]

'Thus, the most we can do is speculate, which is a waste of everyone's time."

I aggree... :-)

 

[SpeedBird]

if you want to see a glimpse of a possible future where machines are helping run the world read "I, Robot" by Isaac Asimov.
It is not the same as the film so don't worry :-)
It will really make you think.

Nik

 

[graphic7]

if you want to see a glimpse of a possible future where machines are helping run the world read "I, Robot" by Isaac Asimov.
It is not the same as the film so don't worry :-)
It will really make you think.

Nik

You're concentrating on the "when we get there this is what will happen." Before you waste brain cycles think about "how do we get there?" That's a whole different issue entirely.

 

[EMANUELI]

"HOW DO WE GET THERE" is the major issue and "WHAT WILL HAPPEN" will take care of its self. Your wright Graphic7.

 

[kdinser]

Using simple logic, no programming knowledge needed, design an AI that would be able to counter a high school football team lead by a mediocre quarterback/coach. What if the center (statistically has never caught a pass) suddenly took off for the end zone while 2 receivers took up his position to block for the quarterback, could a computer ever come up with a play like that? or come up with a strategy to counter it?

Compare that to the engineering design process, full scale military thinking and tactical analysis. You will clearly see that we are a LONG LONG way from creating anything even close to a conscious AI.

No matter how advanced a game AI is, I've usually been able to defeat it by just coming up with something that I know the computer couldn't be prepared for.

 

[GlassDraggon]

I'd give it 30 years before we have human level consciousness in AI. But 20 years until we can mass produce computer chips as complex as the human brain. The reasoning behind this is that (according to the theory of relativity) time speeds up as evolution progresses and this is evolution. You can find various graphs and statistical trends which back this claim up. The book "The age of spiritual machines" by Ray Kurzweil (awarded the Dickson Prize and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology named him the Inventor of the Year in '88. Not to mention a myriad of honorary doctorates and the honor awards presented by 2 US presidents).

I'm reading the book at the moment and the case for such a claim is very rational.

 

[graphic7]

The reasoning behind this is that (according to the theory of relativity) time speeds up as evolution progresses and this is evolution.

Not to get off topic, but it sounds like your making Einstein out to be Charles Darwin. :tongue:

 

[GlassDraggon]

Yeah, it's all relative. :P

 

[so-crates]

Using simple logic, no programming knowledge needed, design an AI that would be able to counter a high school football team lead by a mediocre quarterback/coach. What if the center (statistically has never caught a pass) suddenly took off for the end zone while 2 receivers took up his position to block for the quarterback, could a computer ever come up with a play like that? or come up with a strategy to counter it?

Umm, centers are not eligible to receive passes. The only people eligible to receive pases are the last two men on the line of scrimmage(from the sideline in) and everyone in the back field. Since you have to have seven men on the line of scrimmage, it follows that five will not be eligible not including in the quarterback, which leaves only five possible eligible receivers.

In addition, you have to have an eligible number (everything except 50s - 70s) in order to receive a pass.

Incidentally, I remember back when I played football in HS we had this play after we scored a touchdown called a "muddle-huddle" where the entire line except the center and a back would line up 30 yards to the right of of the ball. If the other team didn't also do that (put the majority of of guys where our line was) we'd simply snap the ball and toss it to the back and get a 2-point conversion. If we wanted to just kick the extra point, the line would shift back to the center like normal. The center was the last man on the line of scrimmage, so he could catch a pass, IF he had an eligible number. So what he had to do after scoring was run off the field and someone would have to throw an eligible number on him, and then run back.

And if you're wondering, we always just kicked the extra point :-)

 

[z4955]

it sounds like the movie "The Matrix"

no matter how advanced technology gets, I don't believe there will ever be a machine sophisticated enough to do it's own thinking/reasoning

 

[BobG]

"It seems likely that, at some time in the future, machines will be able to do most of te jobs people do today. We may face a future of jobless growth--a time when productivity increases not because of the work people do but because of the work of machines."
If this really happen in the future, who would be more valuable? human beings (because we create those robots and computers) , or the robots and computers (because they are the ones who are producing most of the sociey's good and services)?
Would human beings become stupid because the majority of us are not donig work at all? If technology makes people stupid, should we still continue to chase for advanced technology?

Quotation from: "Computer Confluence-Exploring Tomorrow's Technology", by George Beekman & Eugene J. Rathswohl

If this really happens in the future?

On a small scale, it happens today. Part of the reason for the 'jobless recovery' we experienced (or at least why job growth lagged the economic recovery so badly), was the wording in the tax cut Bush passed. Companies gained more by upgrading their equipment and/or software than they did by hiring back workers.

But, no, it will be a very long time (if ever) that technology replaces human labor and (more importantly) human decision making. Even with companies choosing upgrading their equipment over hiring back workers, the end result is the ability to produce a cheaper product, increasing demand, and eventually resulting in workers being hired back, even if belatedly.