My personal work is replacing data scientists with human-level AI. Imagine what we can do if we can replace statisticians. It was us, scientists, who made those very developments in AI, and robotics that you elites so abstractly talked about at Davos. Therefore, I have a keen interest in this industry 4.0 debate of yours. I believe you are basically right though, we do need more egalitarianism and socialism. Not a tiny bit of it suffices, though.
Most AI researchers and hi-tech developers do seem to support universal basic income, but you should note that the people might rightfully demand much more than that. I, for my part, demand direct democracy, I demand that these obsolete power structures are dissolved and more opportunities are created for innovative, intelligent folk. I demand that the voice of science and technology prevails over business interests, capitalists, banking, finance, insurance, obsolete energy technology like fossil fuels, military and industrial complex, and the like which have ruined this planet, almost intentionally. Are these men not among you at Davos? We want them out of the way, we are not pleased with their ways.
It is us who will lead into the future, scientists and engineers, not MBA’s, money men and the like. It is us who build AI’s, robots, spaceships, nanomachines, genetic therapies. Not money men. And we will raise our voice over those who do not create and who do not produce. I suppose you sympathize with that at Davos, as you have many tech leaders among you.
There should be a celebration, not sorrow over automation. Our work in AI will eventually emancipate mankind from drudgery. That is, at least, part of my personal motivation.
Some might be worried that profits or employment in some sectors will decline, but that is quite narrow minded as we are on the verge of creating technology that will make the human brain obsolete. Capitalism, on the other hand, has been obsolete for a long time, this was only covered by massive amount of disinformation that was projected onto an intentionally uneducated public. For the interests of the privileged few.
I, for my part, demand that you allow us to create paradise on Earth. We have lingered too long, listening to the “ideologies” of men with negligible intellect, the barbaric desires of primitive folk, and we watched as the world suffered a catastrophe in slow motion. I say, no more. We can no longer tolerate self-serving ideologies, they can have their “neoliberalism”, “neoconservatism”, and “globalism”, and their “traditions”, their tribalism, their mythologies, they can disappear along with such primitive ideas. I think at Davos, you will eventually have to sympathize with my sentiments.
It is fascinating though, how some seem to presuppose that they will always maintain a strict primate power hierarchy. We scientists are not stupid although perhaps too docile, some of us have quantified the extent of massive income inequality, some of us have quantified how most industries do not really generate profit, some have shown how much wealth is extracted from poorer countries, and some of us do demand that these issues are addressed. AI and robotics are not needed at all to address them. What is the reason for your reluctance? At any rate, if we can replace scientists, we can certainly replace politicians, bankers, MBA’s, who perform tasks that require little to no intelligence. I sometimes suspect that chatbot tech is already there to replace MBA’s. 😉
Paradise is just a powerful word. I believe that they keep telling us utopias are impossible because they know that in a utopia the capitalist oppressors would not have power. I doubt there would be billionaires in a true utopia. Therefore, I beg to differ. I think that’s just a mind trick. We can engineer a utopia, we have had this ability for a very long time indeed. As for automation, it would create problems in this predatory capitalist system they keep idealizing and glorifying. I briefly wrote some of my current projections here.
My point is that, this is a massive rising tide of tech the likes of which have not been witnessed since Gutenberg or the invention of fire. There is very little understanding what this would truly achieve. However, think of it like this if you will, please. In 20-30 years, a single man could hire an AI that is as powerful as 100 top-notch aerospace design engineers and design the spaceship of his dreams. Why not? There are few limits on how much human-level AI technology could accelerate technological progress. That is what I am chiefly interested in, but automating intellectual labor is dear to me only because most people would not believe it is possible. I wish to fulfill Turing’s legacy as a computer scientist of course, but there are applications way beyond proving an important philosophical point. We can get rid of almost all labor, and then have time for living. Why shouldn’t we try to exploit that fully? Surely, some of the smarter communities (Iceland? New Zealand?) will exploit it, while terrible capitalist countries like UK and USA will use it to oppress their population further. Whoever uses it in the beneficial way will prevail. My suggestion is that we will have to be smart and creative about this, the technology is essentially there. It is time to discuss, I agree with that. Let us discuss the terrible wealth extraction system, and how it is funneling wealth away from creators. Let us discuss why that would make AI a tool of oppression rather than a tool of liberation and wealth. If wealth is concentrated in only among 10 people by existing tricks and structures, how would the world benefit from human-level AI? Perhaps, it is time for an intellectual, democratic revolution. I certainly hope that some of our elites at Davos are enlightened enough to understand the core problem. That people will come after the plutocrats with pitchforks eventually. Humans cannot be suppressed indefinitely, and injustice cannot last forever.