Universal Basic Income

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh, but those getting richer and richer off of the debt LIKE government debt.

The thing is we could print equity and the rich would benefit just as much, while we reduce the debt.

 

[dcalling]

This is why I said that your idea of technology is stuck in the 90s.
The combination of "smart" systems, AI and robotics extend the reach of automation far beyond mere "repetitive" tasks.

Take that "smart safety system" for example, of which I posted a clip with a demo. There's nothing "repetitive" about that.

The advancement and automation that is standing at our door now, is unlike any previous automation wave in that sense.

Nope, they are all still repetitive tasks, just more complex and take more computational power. i.e. Flying, Go playing, Driving (more complex than flying due to road conditions), all the so called big data analyst... they are all repetitive tasks.

That's not a valid comparision at all.
A valid comparision would be if AI bots were to become so advanced that they actually do the programming / application generation on demand by the end user - with no additional human programmers involved.

Sure, you still need people to create those bots, maintain them, improve them, etc.
But you don't need millions of programmers to do that, obviously.

Good luck with that. This is the part that we differ. What computers do is computing, no more no less. Once we come up with a model, they can compute according to that model, and wether the model is good or bad, only we humans can judge, not computers, because the data has no meaning to computer, we give the data a meaning. i.e. God ask Adam to name the animals, because without Adam, the names has no meaning. No matter how complex a program is, it can't generate meaning out of no meaning, someone has to guide it, so God guide us on meaning and we guild computers on meaning.

As said, it doesn't look at all like it will be that way this time around.
Previous automation waves took over jobs with repetitive tasks and in the process, it created lots of other jobs - probably even more then it took in the first place.

That won't be the case this time. The new reality will surely create some jobs, but not even near the same number that it will annihilate.

Precisely because smart systems with AI powered engines engaged in machine learning, are capable of doing MUCH more then mere repetitive tasks or precision processes.

There is no big difference, the only difference is the degree of freedom.

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

The thing is we could print equity and the rich would benefit just as much, while we reduce the debt.

But there is the matter of control and that is served much better by making "debt slaves" of the American people.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But there is the matter of control and that is served much better by making "debt slaves" of the American people.

I can only respond with the classic poem, "The People".


"The people is a beast of muddy brain

That knows not its own force, and therefore stands

Loaded with wood and stone; the powerless hands

Of a mere child guide it with bit and rein;

One kick would be enough to break the chain;

But the beast fears, and what the child demands,

It does; nor its own terror understands,

Confused and stupefied by bugbears vain.

Most wonderful: With its own hand it ties

And gags itself—gives itself death and war.

For pence doled out by kings from its own store.

Its own are all things between earth and heaven;

But this it knows not; and if one arise

To tell this truth, it kills him unforgiven."

However, the individual doesn't have to be a muddy brained beast along with everyone else.

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

I can only respond with the classic poem, "The People".


"The people is a beast of muddy brain

That knows not its own force, and therefore stands

Loaded with wood and stone; the powerless hands

Of a mere child guide it with bit and rein;

One kick would be enough to break the chain;

But the beast fears, and what the child demands,

It does; nor its own terror understands,

Confused and stupefied by bugbears vain.

Most wonderful: With its own hand it ties

And gags itself—gives itself death and war.

For pence doled out by kings from its own store.

Its own are all things between earth and heaven;

But this it knows not; and if one arise

To tell this truth, it kills him unforgiven."

However, the individual doesn't have to be a muddy brained beast along with everyone else.

True--but there is a reason why the Bible likens most people to sheep. Sheep are as easily led by bad shepherds as good ones and, since these days, there are fewer and fewer good shepherds, we get our current conditions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

True--but there is a reason why the Bible likens most people to sheep. Sheep are as easily led by bad shepherds as good ones and, since these days, there are fewer and fewer good shepherds, we get our current conditions.

So true.

 

[Kalevalatar]

[Staff edit].

You can have your hubris for the moment. Talk to me when the elites decide to cut off the spigots. Wait until the "advanced Nordic country", Sweden, goes bankrupt from funding those who have pledged to tear democracy apart.

Sweden has been around for 2,000+ years, runs one of the oldest and strongest democracies in the world, ranks at the bottom of the Failed States Index, making it the least likeliest state to fail (with neighbouring Finland ranking as the sole "very sustainable" state in the world, followed by fellow Nordics Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Iceland) and as the 6th most competitive economies in the world (not bad for an economy of 10 million people) with sound governance and sound book-keeping, little corruption and little social grievance and well equipped to embrace the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with a strong score on technological readiness and innovation. No need for the US-style debt-ceiling in need of a raise every sixth month.

Those are the facts.

[Staff edit].

The reason why the United States is such a successful global power and economy is in its diverse social makeup and being a nation of immigrants, the synenergy of adopting innovations -- good stuff -- from all over the world, including diversity of brains and thinking. The Nordics have been at disadvantage and have only been able to catch up from the 1960's on. It's when the Nordic welfare model was adopted, modelled after the hugely successful post-war US pro-middle class model before the United States went pro-1%-er and "trickle down fantasy" and when the Nordic country's began to attract diverse immigration and the smartest mind the way United States used to do.

The United States of America keeps being left behind while its former peers keep advancing because the United States Congress is still stuck in the 18th century. A hugely diverse country is represented by an uber homogenous bunch of old white heterosexual Christian English-speaking millionaire grandpas. And the Americans wonder why their babies can't have affordable accessible pro-life pre- and post-natal care! Gee I wonder why. Maybe the 60-something trust fund grandpas just don't feel the need...?

Meanwhile, the Swedish Riksdagen truly represents the diversity of the country: 50/50 male/female of whom 12% are foreign-born with non-traditional Swedish names like Said, Amir, Nooshi, Amineh, Sultan, Azadeh, Boriana and working to keep the Swedish social democratic model strong and fit for the new century. Even the "homogenous" Finnish Parliament of 200 has two bona fide foreign-born Muslim parliamentarians which is two more than the US Congress of 535.

Most crucially, 1% of Finns are millionaires and so happens the Finnish Parliament has two millionaires; thus, the Finnish 1% has an exact 1% representation. In the United States, the 1%-ers have 50% of the Congress seats. As long as Americans keep electing these privileged millionaires to collect & spend their tax money, Americans can only dream of the Nordic goodies we take for granted.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[Staff edit].

I don't think Americans dream about being like Finland.

Kingdoms rise and fall. America is falling. No mystery here.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean.
Please continue the discussion with a level of universal basic respect and courtesy.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Eudaimonist]

What do we do when technology takes away many of our jobs? Within a few decades technology is expected to take away 47% of all today's current jobs.

There's no evidence that will happen. Luddites have been preaching the same doom and gloom for over a century, and the apocalypse never happens. It's mainly just fear mongering.

Economist Robert Reich--inch for inch the smartest man in America

Shameless appeal to authority. There are many smart people who disagree with him on all sorts of issues.

What do you think of this idea ethically?

At the moment, it's unethical. It's just more class warfare, and more whitewashing of theft. Same old, same old.

If it ever happens, we'll have to judge what to do based on the circumstances of the time. Universal Basic Handouts might not be necessary.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope, they are all still repetitive tasks, just more complex and take more computational power. i.e. Flying, Go playing, Driving (more complex than flying due to road conditions), all the so called big data analyst... they are all repetitive tasks.

Still not getting it.
A smart camera's expanding object recognition through machine learning, is the exact opposite of "repetitiveness".

The object recognition isn't programmed. It is learned through the machine learning / AI component.

You're still thinking of "robotics" without that crucial machine learning component.

Good luck with that.

Apparantly, you aren't aware that crude versions of such "bots" are already under development at the labs in msft quarters in Redmond, as well as various other companies and start ups in the valley.

What computers do is computing, no more no less.

What your brain does is computing, no more or less.
The difference is that your brain can learn new things to compute.

Which is exactly the point: AI & machine learning does exactly that: LEARN MORE without having to program it.

Once we come up with a model, they can compute according to that model, and wether the model is good or bad, only we humans can judge, not computers, because the data has no meaning to computer, we give the data a meaning

Computers are perfectly capable of evaluating data and efficiency of solutions.
You know...for someone who claims to have been programming in C and C++ for that long, you quite remarkable, and rather questionable, things about what computers can and can't do....

i.e. God ask Adam to name the animals, because without Adam, the names has no meaning.

Myeah..... evaluating data isn't really the same as sticking arbitrary labels to object to be able to communicate about them while both parties understand what object is being discussed.............

A chair is what it is and it has its function. A stable chair is a stable chair. Its nature or quality isn't going to change simply by giving it another name.

No matter how complex a program is, it can't generate meaning out of no meaning, someone has to guide it, so God guide us on meaning and we guild computers on meaning.

Now, it seems you are choosing the road of obscurity and vagueness. I'm having trouble to see what your point is in context of the subject.

There is no big difference, the only difference is the degree of freedom.

Seems like a mega random statement in response to what you quoted.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's no evidence that will happen. Luddites have been preaching the same doom and gloom for over a century, and the apocalypse never happens. It's mainly just fear mongering.



Shameless appeal to authority. There are many smart people who disagree with him on all sorts of issues.



At the moment, it's unethical. It's just more class warfare, and more whitewashing of theft. Same old, same old.

If it ever happens, we'll have to judge what to do based on the circumstances of the time. Universal Basic Handouts might not be necessary.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Let's just take one particular aspect of "new technology" and assume that everything else remains roughly the same: auto-pilot in cars.

It's rather clear already today that one day this technology will be so solid that auto-pilot will simply drive better, safer and more efficiently then any human could.

The incentive for still employing human drivers in any industry that requires driving, would be come non-existant: humans cost money AND there's less chance of crashes without them.

That effectively puts every truck driver, taxi driver, limo driver, bus driver,... out of work.
That's a LOT of jobs. Basically, the only driver that will get to keep his job are professional racers (eventhough I also fully expect "driverless" races to show up).

Do you think that the new industry of self-driving cars will create other jobs for all those people?

I say: most definatly not.

Most car brands are actually already working on self-driving functionality. They didn't require hiring thousands of additional people to do so.

And while they might require more software engineers to build these functions.... it's not like they need a programmer for every car they produce.

So indeed, I wonder how this will play out.

One thing that certainly seems unwise though, is to "wait and see", like you seem to suggest. If you "wait to see" that indeed, suddenly there is massive job loss with no alternative - then it's to late and you got yourself a serious crisis on your hands.

So it seems to me to be better to prepare for the future and at least do the exercise of asking the question and actually answering it: what if...

In a world where machines indeed "steal" jobs faster then new jobs get created, something like a universal basic income is going to be needed.

By all means, idd, don't implement it unless it is actually needed.... But I'ld still advice to do the exercise of finding ways in how this could work, how it would get funded, etc... So that if and when you actually need it, all you have to do is just implement it.

 

[dcalling]

Still not getting it.
A smart camera's expanding object recognition through machine learning, is the exact opposite of "repetitiveness".

Do you mean a camera with some cpu and program to process the data? As long as it is a program, it is repetitive, it can't exceed the boundaries that it was designed (it can sort of, that is when it crash).

The object recognition isn't programmed. It is learned through the machine learning / AI component.

Yes, all recognition programs are programmed. All so called machine learning are programmed. Machine learning does not come up with anything new, what it does is, given an algrithm with attributes, that (the algrithm) can extract certain attributes from given data and adjust its attributes. The algrithm is repeative, it just got one extra indirection in it, that is all.

You're still thinking of "robotics" without that crucial machine learning component.

See above. No one has come up with a generic algrithm to do true learning, most of the concepts we can think of today were already thought of many many years ago even without means to do those (FFT was created way before people know how to use them in real world till computers come). yet no one has come up with an idea how to get a machine that can just be like us.

Apparantly, you aren't aware that crude versions of such "bots" are already under development at the labs in msft quarters in Redmond, as well as various other companies and start ups in the valley.


What your brain does is computing, no more or less.
The difference is that your brain can learn new things to compute.

Which is exactly the point: AI & machine learning does exactly that: LEARN MORE without having to program it.

Computers are perfectly capable of evaluating data and efficiency of solutions.
You know...for someone who claims to have been programming in C and C++ for that long, you quite remarkable, and rather questionable, things about what computers can and can't do....

Those bots can be as complicated as they can be, but the core deficiency is still there, they won't be able to exceed their design. Trust me if someone really got an algrithm to do this, you will have already heard of this and that guy will get a nobel price immediately.

It is not just me, many computer sciense majors held the same idea. For the ones that does not think so, you can ask them to figure out a model/algrithm to do this, and they will fail flat on their face If you do find such algrithm, let me know.

Something are designed to be done by computers: telephone switches, driving cars, airplanes, searching, cooking, computer games, chess, number crunching in general. However they will only replace humans on the jobs that we don't want to do, the repetitive ones, just like how machines freed us from farm fields and telephone switches.

 

[mark46]

I believe that 47% is a serious underestimate, but it's OK to deal with. We will need 1/2 of our working age population to produce all the goods and service we need for consumption or export.

I do NOT believe that huge taxes would be needed to support society. The workers will be produce enormous wealth. Consider the wealth that will be produced when 3D printers are more available. How many dollars worth profit will each worker produce? It will be very large. The easiest way for many to understand is to consider a VAT. There will be plenty of value produced. To be plain, if one worker in the future produces as much as two workers now, the total wealth available for taxation, and the required taxation rate is the same.

Actually, this process is happening much slower that I ever thought possible when I studied in college, and read in the science fiction I read a youth. The issues have been discussed for many, many decades.

For rich countries, I believe that Universal Basic Income is a no-brainer, along with more guaranteed goods and services than we have now (although this is somewhat irrelevant since wealth transfers can be either through services or money).

I believe that fewer hours for everyone is NOT a good idea. Some people are much, much more productive than others. They need to work, and to be compensated at levels so that they wish to work.

IMHO, we needed higher tax rates on the wealthy. Most of them agree. Most of those in 1% would gladly pay much more, if there was significant improvement in the spending of funds by governments. But this is not the issue at hand.

Folks can look at all the products in their home, and a factory next to an Amazon warehouse. Very few people are needed. Of course, when the energy issue is solved, the number of people would be diminished to almost nothing. Very cheap energy will reduce costs to almost nil.
========
The bottom line is that is that automation has been reducing jobs for decades. We have replaced these jobs by creating service jobs like walking dogs for others or mowing their lawn or so many otters.

What do we do when technology takes away many of our jobs? Within a few decades technology is expected to take away 47% of all today's current jobs.

Economist Robert Reich--inch for inch the smartest man in America--suggests the Universal Basic Income. Finland and Switzerland are two countries that employ this strategy.

His videos are filled with charming cartoons that he draws along the way (speeded up, of course, in the cartoon) but I do believe this is where we need to be headed.

Either that or fewer work hours for everyone.

What do you think of this idea ethically? I would prefer reduced work weeks and hours, but if our society created this problem (which it has) I believe our society has to deal with it compassionately.

Robert Reich (Why We’ll Need a Universal Basic Income Imagine a...)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do you mean a camera with some cpu and program to process the data?

And an AI engine in the cloud running on some massive datacenter or server park, which makes the system improve itself autonomously.

As long as it is a program, it is repetitive, it can't exceed the boundaries that it was designed (it can sort of, that is when it crash).

Sure. I never said otherwise. Such a smart security system isn't suddenly going to start creating robots for mining or whatever.

The part that you seem to be missing however, is that those "boundaries" are unlike any boundaries we've seen before. With the previous automation waves, we had robots that build cars for example on an automated assembly line.

If there was a design change, which required a certain thing to be placed like 2mm more to the left - you had to reprogram the robotics responsible for placing the thing.

With AI powered factories, such things aren't needed anymore. The system itself reprograms it.

And off course it doesn't stop there... Previously, maintenance times had to be scheduled in and everything required checking, even when nothing was going on. If system failures occured, it potentially messed up the entire assembly line and depending on the line, it could very well be that plenty of robots following the one with the failure got seriously damaged as well.

AI turns that around as well. Through experience it can learn to predict system failures. It can shut down automatically. It can adjust settings to avoid system failure. It can automatically warn maintenance crew. Add a few AI powered drones in there and you can potentially have a fully automated factory with a fully automated maintenance fleet of drones.

Effectively, what AI does, is something like "automating the automation process itself".

It's a HUGE difference.

Yes, all recognition programs are programmed. All so called machine learning are programmed. Machine learning does not come up with anything new, what it does is, given an algrithm with attributes, that (the algrithm) can extract certain attributes from given data and adjust its attributes. The algrithm is repeative, it just got one extra indirection in it, that is all.

Still not getting it.

It means that you need LESS programmers and LESS interventions to optimize or alter the system. The AI engine does the optimization and the alterations by itself. No human intervention required anymore. No more "manual" adjustments.

The system itself now takes are of it. And it will only get more advanced.

See above. No one has come up with a generic algrithm to do true learning

The entire industry is still in baby shoes at this point. But already today, the incredible power is evident. Which is exactly it is a topic of discussion...

yet no one has come up with an idea how to get a machine that can just be like us.

Why would we need to?

Those bots can be as complicated as they can be, but the core deficiency is still there, they won't be able to exceed their design.

They don't need to.
Software for operating a vehicle only needs to operate a vehicle.
Through machine learning, it will become better at operating a vehicle: more safety, more efficient use of power, better anticipation, better predictive capabilities that some tech fail will occur, etc.

However they will only replace humans on the jobs that we don't want to do, the repetitive ones, just like how machines freed us from farm fields and telephone switches.

It seems that the way you are using the word "repetitive", we could use that label for about 80% of human activities.

 

[Paradoxum]

There's no evidence that will happen. Luddites have been preaching the same doom and gloom for over a century, and the apocalypse never happens. It's mainly just fear mongering.

Why is it Luddite or fear mongering? I think the loss of jobs could be a good thing. It isn't scary, it's progress. Let people live free lives and not spend 5/7th's of their lives doing something they don't enjoy.

There's no reason to keep to this arbitrary and non-traditional lifestyle.

At the moment, it's unethical. It's just more class warfare, and more whitewashing of theft. Same old, same old.

I don't really know what you mean. The richest have gotten richer, and the the average person hasn't seen much of that, even though they are the productive people who create. That isn't merit, that's theft. The systems is corrupt.

 

[SkyWriting]

What do we do when technology takes away many of our jobs? Within a few decades technology is expected to take away 47% of all today's current jobs.Economist Robert Reich--inch for inch the smartest man in America--suggests the Universal Basic Income. Finland and Switzerland are two countries that employ this strategy.His videos are filled with charming cartoons that he draws along the way (speeded up, of course, in the cartoon) but I do believe this is where we need to be headed.Either that or fewer work hours for everyone.What do you think of this idea ethically? I would prefer reduced work weeks and hours, but if our society created this problem (which it has) I believe our society has to deal with it compassionately.

Much better to have basic universal usefulness or work. If you are
unable to find work, appropriate basic work will be assigned to you.
Those who do not work, will not eat.

 

[dcalling]

And an AI engine in the cloud running on some massive datacenter or server park, which makes the system improve itself autonomously.

It can only improve on things that we program it to. No one has wrote program to handle situation that we humans have not thought of yet, or else he would be famouse.

Sure. I never said otherwise. Such a smart security system isn't suddenly going to start creating robots for mining or whatever.

The part that you seem to be missing however, is that those "boundaries" are unlike any boundaries we've seen before. With the previous automation waves, we had robots that build cars for example on an automated assembly line.

If there was a design change, which required a certain thing to be placed like 2mm more to the left - you had to reprogram the robotics responsible for placing the thing.

With AI powered factories, such things aren't needed anymore. The system itself reprograms it.

And off course it doesn't stop there... Previously, maintenance times had to be scheduled in and everything required checking, even when nothing was going on. If system failures occured, it potentially messed up the entire assembly line and depending on the line, it could very well be that plenty of robots following the one with the failure got seriously damaged as well.

AI turns that around as well. Through experience it can learn to predict system failures. It can shut down automatically. It can adjust settings to avoid system failure. It can automatically warn maintenance crew. Add a few AI powered drones in there and you can potentially have a fully automated factory with a fully automated maintenance fleet of drones.

Effectively, what AI does, is something like "automating the automation process itself".

It's a HUGE difference.

See my first answer, machines can't deal with things we have not thought off yet.

Still not getting it.

It means that you need LESS programmers and LESS interventions to optimize or alter the system. The AI engine does the optimization and the alterations by itself. No human intervention required anymore. No more "manual" adjustments.

The system itself now takes are of it. And it will only get more advanced.



The entire industry is still in baby shoes at this point. But already today, the incredible power is evident. Which is exactly it is a topic of discussion...




Why would we need to?



They don't need to.
Software for operating a vehicle only needs to operate a vehicle.
Through machine learning, it will become better at operating a vehicle: more safety, more efficient use of power, better anticipation, better predictive capabilities that some tech fail will occur, etc.





It seems that the way you are using the word "repetitive", we could use that label for about 80% of human activities.

I think I know where our differences are. You think machine learning can produce something more than what the design model is, I will tell you no. I remember you are the founder of a startup, so you might be a computer science major right? Do you remember the class of languages? it is proven that no matter how flexible or none flexible a laguage is, the things it can do is the same.

There is no magic pill in computer languages. All the so called machine learning is actually model design, and then create parameters from a set of training data, and use that parameter (instead of create parameters first like traditional programming). The ones who decide on final model and parameters are still us