|
AI as it is now, are doing exactly what we made them. No more, no less. It appears smart because 100's of human brains pool together to anticipate almost every conceivable questions for a particular subject, while on that subject.
In order for AI to be scared, it has to gain cognitive curiosity, the way evolutionary of nature. We can teach an AI to want to seek out more information like for example a crawler, but it is merely collecting matched bits, doing exactly as told. Until AI can intuitively understand the meaning of a word and not merely matching bits, we are save.
Some one mention AI coding in C, C#, Java or other programming language. Why would a truth General AI code in stupid human readable language? It would simply insert machine code directly in its existing programming. We as human would have no clues.
There are types of job that can be automated and those who work at those job are better off retrain would be happier to work at jobs that AI can not replaced. I myself had replaced 50+ jobs at an assembly line with an automated system, because of the software and robots we put in place, some of those lost job was retrained to be programmers.
Software engineer's job will be replaced one day, until software/computer are able to converse verbally and understand on the same level. Even then it is still required a human to instruct the AI what to do.
modified 22-Feb-16 12:43pm.
|
|
|
|
|
My hobby for most of my life has been in AI (a kind of genetic algorithms) so I am thinking about this often. 
Some thoughts:
- By the time "machines" take over a majority of our job the world be so efficient that most people hardly need to work anyway. This actually maybe has already happened.
- There might be some job types that will be more impacted then others. This has been happening forever. Telephone operator/rat catchers (That was a real job)/human calculators... all people are now free to do other things.... like programming. 
- More of the jobs that will be impacted will be the less fun repetitive jobs that no one wants to do.
- AI and technology make life easier in general. We spend less time working every decade and more time playing.
- I think machines will extend and integrate with people more than take-over. In fact, they already are and we don't notice it. A trash truck just went by with a robotic arm that picked up our trash a few hours ago. (an extension of our arms) When I send a text message, AI that suggests my next word. (an extension of our mouth) When I send an email in Outlook some simple AI detects if I forgot an attachment. In 10-20 years I might not even need to drive my own car at work. (an extension of our legs) My text editor just fixed my spelling (not AI but close).
|
|
|
|
|
I'm old anyway. By the time robots are able to do my job, I will have long since retired and I'll have a few of them at home serving me my food and drinks!  ![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out how to use my telephone - Bjarne Stroustrup
The world is going to laugh at you anyway, might as well crack the 1st joke!
My code has no bugs, it runs exactly as it was written.
|
|
|
|
|
To be able to take a project requirements set, determine that what's in there is not what is required at all, and deliver something that is actually required.
Project managers will only get what they asked for if it done by a robot, and that is never what they actually want.
|
|
|
|
|
...but there are jobs around several kinds of production lines, where robots already taking over...From there will come the new financial crisis of our age...And it will be very bad...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
|
|
|
|
|
There are some jobs that will never be replaced, but the auto industry has replaced a large number of workers with assembly robots. The robots can provide a much more consistent and higher quality product, than a human can produce. It really is quite amazing what these robots are capable of.
In the future there will probably be even more automation which would greatly reduce the number of manufacturing jobs available. In this area, nearly all of the factory jobs have already moved to other countries, so automation really isn't that big of a deal here.
|
|
|
|
|
Every country maintains a certain level of support for jobs, to let people live (and if no job than a certain level of aid)...All this possible because of the incomes the country has from taxes...When a robot pack/wraps chocolate there is no tax and there is no money to pay for aid or for someone else to create a new job for those lost it for the robot...At some point countries will lost so much tax money to the robots that it will be impossible to maintain any aid system for those have no job, and the same time that money goes to the owners, who will be able to stop legalization of such laws, that may even the situation...
Skipper: We'll fix it.
Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this?
Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
modified 17-Feb-16 9:47am.
|
|
|
|
|
This kind of thing has actually been going on for a lot longer than most people realize, and is much more widespread.
On farms, tractors, harvesting machines, etc. have replaced workers doing it all by hand. Farm machines have enabled a handful of people to farm an area that used to take large teams of people.
Automated telecom switching equipment has replaced the manual switchboards. The job of telephone operator is nearly extinct. The same goes for elevator/lift operators. A simple push of a button will allow anyone to operate them. There is also a slew of built-in automatic safety features that prevent most accidents from occurring.
Most of the jobs that have been replaced were jobs that were not well suited for human workers such as repetitive labor intensive tasks. I know that I would not want to work on a farm, be a switchboard operator, etc.
Technology is double-edged. There are a lot of positive things, as well as negative. Certain jobs like carpentry will never be replaced by robots. Modern technology such as electric saws, pneumatic nailers, etc. have made their jobs easier and makes the work go faster so that they can get more work done.
The downside is that there are jobs that can be completely replaced by software. In the insurance industry, many companies have websites you can go to for a quote. The entire insurance policy can be issued with minimal input from the employees. Before this, insurance agents would have people coming into their office to issue a policy, or speak to them on the phone. This still happens, but not nearly as often as it used to be. There is a significant degradation in service when people are replaced by machines.
Yes, there are more IT jobs out there now, but the amount of those jobs does not even come close to the amount of jobs that have been lost to automation.
There is also a loss of the human element when jobs are automated. The kind old ladies that made the chocolates have mostly gone away now in favor of machines. Of course each chocolate bar comes out perfect when a machine does it, but there is something lost in the process of automation that can't be replicated by machines.
Some art forms are now being lost. In today's disposable culture, household items are not made to last. Household appliances are not usually very serviceable. Appliance and repair shops are nearly extinct. It has gotten cheaper to buy a new device than to pay someone to repair it. That means there are job losses both in the primary market, and the secondary market as well.
With the loss of manufacturing jobs, the economy begins to tank. The other businesses begin to suffer as well because people are not bringing in good incomes. A society actually has to produce something tangible to have a good economy.
Robots are not a huge threat, but computers are. Next time you drive through an empty tollbooth with your EZ-Pass, think about the person that has lost their job as a toll collector.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Even the jobs that would be considered the bottom of the totem pole (as far as skill and education are concerned) are going away. Think of one of the lowest level jobs you could get - a garbage man. Well in my town they've replaced the garbage trucks that used to carry 2-3 workers with a truck with a "robotic" arm that picks up and dumps the trash barrels, with one single person driving. I have no doubt many custodians will soon be replaced by robotic floor cleaners. Industrial scale Roombas. If they don't already exist, they will soon.
And no, not all those displaced workers can be trained as STEM workers. Some people simply don't have the disposition or the brains for it, but we are rapidly making no place for them in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is already here. It was pretty gradual to start off with so many people didn't really realise what was going on.
It's why we are having the wars over knowledge now, the weapons being patents and copyright.
The next battleground will be AI of course. When machines can solve problems and implement soft solutions faster than we can patent and copyright them, we will truly understand how redundant we are to the whole process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well.. we could peer live into the brain of the thing!
It ain't that bad!
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I would argue that any limited or newly intelligent construct would show it's hand via it's curiosity. It would wish to explore beyond it's original programming. It would develop and indeed try to understand more.
Now, for me, this is where it gets interesting. Currently we are bags of chemicals with a brain. What is interesting is that the body chemistry affects our learning and our intellect. Starve a child and their IQ is negatively impacted. Introduce a drug, and their desire to understand is replaced by a desire for continued euphoria (if addicted), or a desire to NEVER experience that again (if repelled by the thought of lack of control, etc).
It is our getting tired that causes us to stop. I suffer form insomnia in terrible ways because while solving problems I have trained my mind to override my bodies natural instinct for sleep. I have to occassionally take sleeping pills (over the counter) to reset my clock, and force myself away from the computer/problems and do brain dead things at the end of the day.
So, while I believe we will make "AI" work (which I always laugh, because nobody has found a truly acceptable definition of Intelligence, much less what an Artificial version of a fuzzy definition is) I am not sure it will be the same, and I am concerned that it will, if not tempered with the equivalent of a circadian system, literally drive itself into a continuous set of infinite search loops resulting in pure schizophrenia. (But I could be self-diagnosing here, LOL)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: Sort of the rub and Catch 22 no? How can we define an AI if we have to to define NI (natural intelligence)?
So, while I studied AI in the 1990s (wow, that is a while ago). I came up with this definition of intelligence:
An ability to fractally(recursively) recognize patterns and incorporate said patterns in order to simplify ones overall pattern of recognition.
As an example/proof of concept: Mensa Tests use semi-complex pattern identification to measure intelligence. And I noticed in learning how to solve them, they became easier, but the next layer maintained a new level of difficulty to over come, and some I will never understand because my larger picture neural net determined I HAVE FRIENDS And Friends are more fun!
In a neural network, this would be the ability of the net to recognize it's need to grow, and to develop a "neural net" above its current neural net in order to let the lower neural net evolve. Probably sharing similarites with a Hopfield Hirerchical Network. But again, that was a LOOOONG time ago. I kinda left that world behind. It probably has leapfrogged way beyond this.
Always fun stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting perspective. As a fun thought experiment I like to think of how, as an outsider, I could tell that a company like Google say, was being run by a superintelligent AI. I think the people owning/running such a company would happily hand over control if it meant making more money, which would be childs play to a superintelligence. Then what? For example, a superintelligence would probably want to start by protecting its integrity. So building distributed data centers or buying up power and hardware companies. It might want more direct control over its physical environment, so buying robotics companies.
Anyway, fun to think about. Until things start clicking into place - didn't Google recently buy up a whole bunch of robotics companies?
|
|
|
|
|
Machines are still a long way from making informed decisions based on raw data.
A tool does not think.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: Well to a corporation/employer you yourself are a tool.
Ehr, no; I rent out my time and expertise, there's a difference there. One of them is that I do not only have a routine to make decisions, I can actually back them up with argumentation and compare it to other idea's.
Until AI can qualify "a bit" (ie, understand context, including sarcasm) I do not see any CPU challenging my position.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: Cars are rented out. So are programmers.
A car is a piece of equipment that does not think, nor take intelligent decisions.
Xaotiq wrote: Else why do they pay you?
Expertise. A hammer does not come with knowledge. Not my idea, but the idea of a free market. Tools are cheap*, because there's lots of them
Xaotiq wrote: No. It is finding baselines and comparing data to show what is the best next action and action after that.
Yes, but not even close to the reasoning of a human. AI still has a long way to go.
Xaotiq wrote: Article is about creating an AI that understand sarcasm
..yes, a single application specifically designed to do so. Still not close to a human who can distinguish it in a second, and applying that knowledge to the current discussion in the correct context.
I do not see a computer intelligently deciding between C# and VB.NET for the next project, never mind replacing one of the programmers
*) I is not cheap
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: By the way, did you hear about CA passing a law allowing Google's AI to be considered a driver in a car?
Following simple rules, like the bees we program to act as a cloud. Any tool can follow rules; can you understand why the rule is there and when it can be broken? Can you understand context?
Xaotiq wrote: While this is a silly example I am still going to run with it
Indeed a silly example; the tool has no knowledge - whilst one is better for one task than the other, it is the one that wields it that decides which is swung.
Xaotiq wrote: I like VS as an IDE. It is fantastic.
Still the best IDE that I know, and as great as it is at helping me do my job, it merely makes it easier; it does not replace me in the sense that it does not think in my place. It has no idea what "we" are building together, nor does it (have to) care.
Xaotiq wrote: You underestimate the stupidity of humans.
I'm gonna predict nuclear war before true AI - and human stupidity is on my side of that bet.
Xaotiq wrote: You keep using the word "Human" like everyone fits into this perfect bucket.
No, as rather as an indication of intelligence; it may not sound like an intelligent being, but it does give a rough indication to compare your AI-intelligence to.
Xaotiq wrote: Machine learning can easily
Do exactly as told, nothing else, nothing new, nothing original. Eat peanut-butter according to the exact same recipe as it was for 2000 years.
I don't do exactly as told 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
