Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CyberBullMoose t1_iwxn71s wrote

Even the people in the comments aren't ready for the next decade or so!

80

botfiddler t1_iwyhru2 wrote

I'm rather a bit careful or conservative, but I think it's likely that in 10 years from now 50-90% of all office jobs can be replaced with some AI. This might still not happen immediately as soon as it's possible, and there might be some new jobs created at the same time, but it's going to be wild anyways.

Just ask yourself how many here would be impacted by that.

40

targ_ t1_iwysru2 wrote

This right here is why we need universal basic income

22

unicornlocostacos t1_iwztbw4 wrote

Don’t worry our government (at least in the US) won’t even think about that until 80% of the population is on their doorstep with pitchforks and torches.

That’s what happens when you’re only capable of planning 1 quarter out.

7

TJ137 t1_iwz6845 wrote

Just remember nothing is given without something expected. Maybe they give you 2k a month but you have to follow their rules. I would way rather work and make my own money.

1

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_iwz903c wrote

UBI is not a choice between working or letting the government control you. You can work regardless.

And just think about what you're suggesting. They will threaten to take away you're UBI, and that is somehow worse than it not existing in the first place? That's like telling a homeless man that the government will offer him a house but expect him to work a job, and the government shouldn't go down that path because then the homeless man will be dependent on the government to not be homeless.

12

Wassux t1_iwzlafh wrote

I never understand UBI, it seems impossible to me. Prices are driven by supply and demand, if we don't increase supply but do increase income, everything will just get more expensive. What's the point?

2

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_iwznyca wrote

why doesn't supply increase? Is it locked or something?

If the general population has more money then there's more incentive than ever to produce more stuff. Also, this topic is a little more advanced, but in economics there is a thing called the Utilization Rate. A huge percentage of our Capital [machines and production] are sitting idle.

6

Wassux t1_ix07cqh wrote

Because there are only a limited amount of resources? AI isn't going to magically appear more copper out of thin air. And aren't they sitting idle because we don't need them?

2

cyan2k t1_ix10wtv wrote

If there’s UBI I would do nothing then Netflix and chill because even my passions like making music or painting would be replaced by AI by then. Bring it on!

1

botfiddler t1_ix43lqi wrote

You can use such an AI for making your own game or show?

1

mutantbeings t1_ix1myl9 wrote

I love your comment because you’re cracking the surface on why universal basic income is actually just a band aid on neoliberalism, because it perpetuates the same ideology of the system we have now that your needs should still be a commodity that you must buy.

Universal basic welfare is the answer to that; which simply gives people everything they need to survive and undermines the oppressive neoliberal logic that everything in life should be bought and sold, even the most fundamental needs everyone has to have access to in order to survive.

The rich hate UBW because it reduces their ability to spend UBI on luxuries and reduces their ability to profit off of other peoples UBI spends. So it is talked about way less.

The logic of commodification is by no means a given or any kind of truth; but we are socialised extremely strongly to think that anything different is impossible. Not true at all.

2

Wassux t1_ix1nnd3 wrote

See this is something I can get behind.

3

TJ137 t1_iwzf18g wrote

Sounds like you really really want UBI not that you have a valid argument as for why it's good lol.

−2

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_iwzoyn6 wrote

To be honest it sounds like you really don't want UBI and don't even know what it is.

10

Butthole_seizure t1_ix0fpg6 wrote

Could it come from the value of your data of is this too utopic to be real?

1

botfiddler t1_ix439la wrote

Idk. Maybe only if immigration is regulated strictly. It might already be too late for more than just an extremely low UBI. Why would the people with still some jobs, capital gains or retirement funds support it? Especially if it's just for random people living in the same country? Also, if a big energy and fossil fuel crunch happens around the same time, a lot of very cheap farmworkers will be needed.

0

Exel0n t1_iwz9ifc wrote

ubi is stupid. millionaires and billionaire do not need it. why should they get ubi when they pay taxes already?

unemployment benefit is all it needs. just increase it

−2

SWATSgradyBABY t1_iwzdyld wrote

We need a political revolution. You choose the method. But UBI under this system would turn into 1984 almost immediately. It already is a dystopia for some. But lots of people don't consider it real until they get burned.

−2

GinchAnon t1_ix0czx2 wrote

I don't follow why that would be the case? like... how?

2

stupendousman t1_ix01k1b wrote

Translation:

"I want the government to take money from strangers and give it to me. "

−7

lajfa t1_ix04n7c wrote

I want the government to take money (value) from robots and give it to me.

8

stupendousman t1_ix0913c wrote

r/singularity, where commenters don't even understand tech before the singularity.

They don't understand decentralized management, spontaneous organization, process innovation, etc.

Tech trends towards decentralization, not an eternal replay of 1960s US manufacturing.

The rate of decentralization is slowed by the very government you types champion- to benefit you personally.

0

spamholderman t1_ix1ayb9 wrote

1960s manufacturing no longer exists in the US because we buy all our shit from China and print dollars backed with force and financialization of the economy. Your version of the future only works with portable matter replicators they are so cost effective making a physical copy of anything including more replicators is as effectively free as making a digital copy. As long as production has to be centralized because of supply chain complexity and economies of scales, we’re still going to have factories and factory owners. Relying on your local factory owner for all of your goods and services is a lot less utopia and more feudalism.

On the other hand this sounds like a great situation for the majority, unemployable and relying on charity to survive, to use decentralized communications to organize a violent takeover of less well defended everything factories and use the supplies to attack and capture as many factories and factories owners as possible to then decentralizedly redistribute their seemingly infinite resource- wait this is just seizing the means of production and you’re advocating for communism!

2

stupendousman t1_ix1hv3a wrote

> 1960s manufacturing no longer exists in the US because we buy all our shit from China and print dollars backed with force and financialization of the economy.

The point was about centralization, as this: "Tech trends towards decentralization" clearly refers to.

Mid-century US was all about centralization in business and government.

>Your version of the future only works with portable matter replicators

Nope.

>As long as production has to be centralized because of supply chain complexity and economies of scales

The internet makes supply logistics pretty easy. Economies of scale are required for some business plans, not all by a long shot.

> Relying on your local factory owner for all of your goods and services is a lot less utopia and more feudalism.

Feudalism!!!

Take a few minutes and read I, Pencil.

A small business can set up supply contracts from other businesses all over the world.

>On the other hand this sounds like a great situation for the majority, unemployable and relying on charity to survive

I see, your conceptual models are taken straight from dystopian fiction.

>wait this is just seizing the means of production and you’re advocating for communism!

100101000011110101

1

targ_ t1_ix05veg wrote

I don't think you understand how money works...

0

stupendousman t1_ix096it wrote

You've copied the tone of the 2000s Daily Show without the wit.

−1

mutantbeings t1_ix1ma2z wrote

I don’t agree at all; because technology doesn’t really drive job creation as much as capitalism does, and many many jobs that exist are already redundant and the rationale for their existence is entirely circular already; yet they persist. We have an economic system that is insanely wasteful and AI isn’t really going to be a major lever on that I don’t think.

TLDR read Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber

2

botfiddler t1_ix4e6z2 wrote

I know about bullshit jobs. The don't exist in any state controlled economy. /s

1

stardust_dog t1_ixjjozb wrote

I'm rather a bit careful or conservative, but I think it's likely that in 10 years from now 50-90% of all office jobs can be replaced with some AI. This might still not happen immediately as soon as it's possible, and there might be some new jobs created at the same time, but it's going to be wild anyways.

Just ask yourself how many here would be impacted by that.

….it would maybe be that long if the tech was out now to replace the particular job. Adoption costs money and takes way too long due to decision makers dragging their feet…many offices are doing what they do because of policies and law so ensuring those wouldn’t be overlooked takes a long while too.

1

Melodic-Work7436 t1_iwxnpqu wrote

Agreed. We’re on an exponential curve.

24

lovesdogsguy t1_ix0j8oq wrote

I really feel like we're perhaps only 1-4 years away from hitting the horizontal vertical side of the curve.

3

ArgentStonecutter t1_iwxl2b4 wrote

66 years ago the LGP-30 was released. It had 4k of magnetic drum memory. No random access memory. It cost $47,000 and was one of the first personal computers (it beat the better known PDP-1 of spacewar fame to market by three years).

Edit: Also: http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html

62

Redvolition OP t1_iwz22g7 wrote

On the other hand, we've got furries now, so not everything improved.

6

ArgentStonecutter t1_iwz3prf wrote

Tell me you've never seen a Bugs Bunny cartoon without telling me you've never seen a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

14

[deleted] t1_ix0jeq7 wrote

That’s nothing. Kenya West’s former mother in law had a vasectomy

6

XTB2D t1_ix1mr9u wrote

Indeed. If we focus only on space exploration then we seem to have made no progress in the last 66 years.

But actually we just grinded another branch of the tech tree.

4

djehutimusic t1_iwxv110 wrote

We are the singularity. Not creating an “artificial” superintelligence. Becoming the (singular) superintelligence: comprising both evolved and created processing, both computation and inference, and with an identity transcending the boundaries of any subset of individuals. There is no such thing as AI; it’s just increasingly complex tools to assist our intelligence, both individually and as a civilization.

38

GoodToKnowYouAll t1_iwyi31w wrote

It is possibly an every increasingly complexifying infinite fractal. Just like a black hole Singularity, there is no single point in the future where this ends

5

inkbleed t1_iwymv9g wrote

Not sure if I'm drunk or what but I freaking love this comment

2

j_dog99 t1_iwyy1zo wrote

Yes but unfortunately we don't have a way to make a 'backup' of ourselves, so most of our progress gets lost. Potentially a quantum leap may happen but we will never know about it, as humanity descends back to it's primitive origins

−1

r0cket-b0i t1_iwxryec wrote

People and even public markets are oblivious to what is coming in just about 5 to 7 years ....

32

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_iwz9pnq wrote

I'm skeptical. we could have replaced K-16 education with online learning over 20 years ago. And it could have blown our current system out of the water. Imagine the top 1000 chemistry teachers in the nation were tasked with sculpting the perfect curriculum. They could have used automated reinforcement feedback systems to individualize curriculums to individual students.

But we didn't do that. Mostly because the people we ask whether that would be a good move to make tell us it would never work and it would be a catastophe because their jobs depend on it not happening. Office middle managers have been absolutely adamant that working from home would be terrible for productivity. Oops! turns out it's better for every single party [business, manager, worker] in every single metric we can think to measure.

Humans could already be living in a post-forced work paradise but we just won't fucking do it.

18

koprulu_sector t1_iwzeajg wrote

If K-12 (not sure what 16 means) were all online, who would babysit the average working family’s kids all day? Serious question.

7

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_iwzoptz wrote

Kids should be capable of staying home alone from age 8+.

Daycare can still exist for kids younger than that. As well as families socializing and agreeing to watch each others kids in exchanges. The families I know already work out agreements where one stay at home mom watches the family friends kids after school every day.

16 means through the end of university. Those classes can also be done online with a small handful of standardized classes. Professors could support multiple times as many students as they currently do if lectures and grading were taken care of for them.

3

ThoughtSafe9928 t1_ix12amv wrote

School isn’t only about education. It’s about fostering growth through learning and exposure.

5

RikerT_USS_Lolipop t1_ix1nska wrote

That would be great. Have you been in a public school in the last two decades?

Also, you can do that remotely too. Or forget the remote part completely and just focus on the fact that we could have our top .001 percentile of teachers giving lessons to everyone via video lecture and electronic practice and testing while they still go to the physical building and get babysat by the current crop of teachers.

1

stupendousman t1_ix01uk4 wrote

> I'm skeptical. we could have replaced K-16 education with online learning over 20 years ago.

The government and government worker unions have monopoly control over that education. No free market action.

>Mostly because the people we ask whether that would be a good move to make tell us it would never work and it would be a catastophe because their jobs depend on it not happening.

People being government school bureaucrats and government teachers.

>Humans could already be living in a post-forced work paradise

No such thing as post work.

−1

mudman13 t1_iwz0nyw wrote

My Grandad was 105 when he died, he witnessed the first car to the landing of a robot on mars.

19

peteschirmer t1_iwxoumu wrote

There are more than 4x the number of people now than 1900 too!

18

Rezeno56 t1_iwypbx5 wrote

1903: First Flight >>> 1969: Moon Landing = 66 years

1969: Moon Landing >>> 2035: ??? = 66 years

I wonder what technological event that will shook the world in that year? AGI? 10M-qubit Quantum Computer? Something we have never thought?

12

GinchAnon t1_ix0doi2 wrote

>Something we have never thought?

probably this. or at least, something we HAVE thought of, existing in a way that we didn't forsee. like look how the original star-trek didn't really even think of NOT having buttons, switches and tape or whatever cartrige storage for computers?

I think that trying to avoid this we are prone to projecting future tech as functionally magic, but maybe the unforseen part is it being totally mundane to do something that we assumed would be magical.

then again, I'm sure commercial flight would be seen as magical to the wright brothers, and to us its pretty mundane.

1

Beneficial_Fall2518 t1_iwyspbc wrote

People look at me funny when I tell them that degree of change will happen in 10-20 years.

9

HalfbrotherFabio t1_iwz2l0y wrote

Because, to be fair, yours is just another mad-sounding speculation. It's not necessarily inaccurate, but I think it's only reasonable to be sceptical of that kind of (immediate) future.

4

ihateshadylandlords t1_iwxxq7r wrote

So how much further have we gone since the moon landing?

8

VeryOriginalName98 t1_iwxz11j wrote

Honestly we stopped doing curiosity based research after that. Everything is incremental and derivative now. But the iterations are fast at least.

15

SineApps t1_iwygato wrote

This comment made me think. In your opinion, if we were to do “curiosity based research”, what would it look like?

I’m assuming nothing like the JWST or the large hadron collider?

I think as we gain more knowledge of our surroundings everything has to be incremental no?

I’m not trying to be a dick with this comment. I work in NLP and it feels like every day I’m following my curiosity.

I’d be curious to see where we could look?

2

VeryOriginalName98 t1_iwz6ir1 wrote

JWST is an exception to my statement. Large Hadron Collider is only serving to confirm what is already "known", and improving the accuracy of existing models. It's not a new field, they aren't creating new elements or discovering new particles since the Higgs boson, and that was already effectively known.

There are still a lot of unknowns in high energy physics, but few projects related to that research. With enough energy, we could separate elements from trash, to recycle perfectly with something like magnetic resonance. But it's not cost effective because of the energy involved. Nobody is looking at it.

Nobody is looking at the deep sea except as a rich person's hobby. We aren't devoting a lot of effort to understand how some animals perceive things we cannot. Every time we do, it becomes news and people think it's some kind of indication we know a lot about it. We really don't, and we are losing species faster than we can study them.

We can print vaccines now, but this was only funded because it was a necessity. Now that covid is effectively solved it's not cost effective to lose your lifetime medicine revenue to actually solve long term illnesses. So it doesn't get funded.

Material properties aren't being researched much. For instance there was talk of holographic storage in crystals for a while but it never became a product because small improvements in current tech was easier to sustain.

Also where the hell is my flying car? We haven't even bent space yet. We aren't getting FTL before we do the fundamental research on that.

3

Redvolition OP t1_iwzvgti wrote

On the plus side, a lot of resources are being poured of late on AI and Longevity research.

If I had a magic wand to control the global economy, my research priorities would be:

  1. Artificial intelligence

  2. Keeping isolated brains alive

  3. BCI via nerve interception

  4. Large scale genetic data gathering

  5. Longevity

  6. Artificial wombs

  7. Cell to egg conversion

  8. Non-invasive embrio selection

1

SineApps t1_ixbccj8 wrote

Cool - I can sleep well knowing I’m working on number 1 on your list 😊

The only thing I’d possibly say is that there are millions of people dying because they fall outside of our rapidly advancing society and that we should divert some effort to bringing the whole world with us.

How? No idea 😂 just saying

1

SineApps t1_iwygrnj wrote

Oh and just because this sub is weird at times (this isn’t directed at you), by NLP I mean Natural Language Processing and not Neuro Linguistic Programming

2

botfiddler t1_iwyinks wrote

Made some nice pics of Pluto with a probe. Sending another probe outside of our solar system. Found some exoplanets using telescopes, up to 10k-25k light-years away from us (sources vary). Also, doing gravity astronomy now, looking back close to the beginning of the universe.

Edit: Better grammar.

3

guidospeedmeister t1_iwymkzi wrote

Going to the moon probably made us prioritise addressing our problems here on earth first....

1

m4xc4v413r4 t1_iwylrgi wrote

That's what happens when you have two world wars in that span of time. Tech develops at the speed of light during major wars.

4

Quealdlor t1_iwzn9gl wrote

More change has happened since the year 2000 than in the whole 20th century. And I don't mean just computers. World economy was ⅓ current in the year 2000 (33 vs 100 trillion $). I remember the year 2000 and I can attest that. The 21st century is much, much bigger than the 20th century. Some people don't realize that for some reason. And the next 10 years will bring more change than the previous 22.

3

TopicRepulsive7936 t1_ix349lr wrote

Amount of computation and economy might correlate linearly at some point. Double the computation and double the economy, or something like that.

1

XTB2D t1_ix1ntk7 wrote

By the way it took only 5 years from the discovery of plutonium to the first atomic bomb. Just incredible

2

imlaggingsobad t1_ix2gyrv wrote

2017 --> 2083 (66 years) is going to blow the Moon mission out of the water. If you could only get a glimpse of the future, you'd realize the incredible trajectory we're on.

2

Human-Ad9798 t1_iwz7lbi wrote

Took another 60 years to do it again

1

icemelter4K t1_iwzz8c8 wrote

Just 24 years after the Holocaust Woodstock was a thing.

1

Scientific_Thinking t1_ix07zt6 wrote

I still wish technology would improve faster tho, not early fast enough for many things in life.
Given how short life is, I surely would want life extension tech to be around the corner.

1

Bynnh0j t1_ix0v2k9 wrote

Yeah, but I'd still consider landing humans on and returning from the moon to be humanity's greatest accomplishment. We haven't really done much more impressive in the past 53 years. Just sending increasingly fancier technology to the same places.

1

Schyte96 t1_ix19upc wrote

I can think of at least two more impressive things. The LHC at CERN, and LIGO. At least if you ask me.

1

ArgentStonecutter t1_ix2l5jf wrote

I would say that the biggest accomplishment from the space program is weather satellites, they've saved who knows how many lives over the decades just because we know when a hurricane is coming before it appears on the horizon.

1

Def-Not-Me t1_ix12nyn wrote

Horse and buggy, to World Wide Web

1

Schyte96 t1_ix19caf wrote

The time between horses being a standard mode of transport and man landing on the moon is about a generation. It's crazy.

1

any1particular t1_ix19elx wrote

Be sure to check out David Deutsch's book 'The Beginning Of Infinity'.

1

OkChildhood2261 t1_iwysl26 wrote

Yeah we went from black and white to colour photography. It's mental when you think about it.

0

jcroom t1_iwyedt9 wrote

And yet the combustible engine hasn’t fundamentally changed at all. Hhmmmm, wonder why? Maybe because EV market disruption was Tom great for the petrol dollar to withstand. So they intentionally regulated against electric vehicles despite the first electric car existing in 1839. Geez wonder why we’re just now getting EVs to market??

−1

SineApps t1_iwygcbe wrote

Energy density?

12

Schyte96 t1_ix19l20 wrote

Yes, it's simple, energy density, but making up some conspiracy theory about a clandestine anti-ev group is more interesting I guess.

3

quiettryit t1_iwxc6n8 wrote

Things sped up once extraterrestrial technologies were acquired...

−2

VeryOriginalName98 t1_iwxyrkl wrote

Normally people refer to spacecrafts as built or created, rather than acquired. Unless maybe there's a NASA surplus store I don't know about.

3

botfiddler t1_iwyhy2g wrote

The way he put it could imply, that he believes some of the technologies were bought from aliens. 😆 Or it was a joke 🙄

2

MjolnirTheThunderer t1_iwyfcni wrote

We must have peaked in the 70’s because since then we apparently “forgot” how to go to the moon.

−2

ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iwxs104 wrote

One of those didn't happen

\I may or may not be joking

−5

boharat t1_iwy2nje wrote

It's okay, you don't have to pretend you're joking. We all know that flying isn't real, everybody is too concerned with being PC to publicly acknowledge that airports are a collective hysteria-induced hallucination

10

ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iwy3bw4 wrote

Don't be sassy. That 1903 Wright Brothers flight did not happen the way it is told. The thing with wings was launched like a sling-shot, it didn't take off powered by its engine, it was not a plane, it was a glider. Nobody witnessed it and later on some story about descendants of five witnesses was fabricated, but nobody ever talked to these supposed witnesses before they died. First actual plane flew in Paris 1906 by Santos Dumont, for the entire city to see.

5

boharat t1_iwy3udn wrote

Well shit, thank you for the history lesson. That's interesting stuff. I need to go find something better to do with my time now that I'm not trying to disprove the existence of airports.

4

ChurchOfTheHolyGays t1_iwy466v wrote

You are most welcome. I am glad someone took the bait so that I could write this for no reason.

10

modestLife1 t1_iwy5tcs wrote

idk what im doing here but i just loved this sequence. 👏👏

7