Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Perhaps thus far.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Will the future of technology unravel mankinds Pandora's Box?
- Thread starter Epic Beard Man
- Start date
Perhaps thus far.
Augustus
…
The industrial revolution was also going to free us from the burdens of labour, yet here we are. That, in theory, AI could allow us to lead more affluent and leisurely lives doesn't mean that it will. That is a question of ethics and politics, not technology
In the industrial world, at least elites still required human labour and so it was necessary to get some degree of buy in by giving something back.
AI could easily render large sections of humanity 'useless' along with providing the means to keep them subjugated.
Techno-utopianism is based purely on a religious-type faith in Progress, but absent a belief in Divine providence, why should we assume that humans will choose to use it altruistically?
And that's before we consider the potential for people using AI with good intentions to also cause significant harms.
The industrial revolution was never about eliminating labor (never "labour").
Even the Luddites knew that jobs wouldn't go away...they actually fought
deceitful labor practices. Instead, it was about using labor more efficiently,
thereby lowering the cost of goods, & improving quality. It did tend to free
people from farming, cottage industries, & for women, from homebound work.
Factories spawned feminism (a grandiose claim, but the roots are there).
The AI revolution looks to be different from the industrial revolution
in that low skill people will become unemployable, ie, .their cost will
exceed their value to any employer. Back in the day, even unskilled
children could work. The term "grease monkey" originates with their
job of lubricating the machinery of mass production. There won't be
any modern equivalent job for them.
Augustus
…
It was more the idea that the egalitarian and leisure heavy predictions of techno-utopians have not been correct so far as there is a big difference between what could be achieved in theory and what will happen in practice.
One major difference is that a lot of skilled and educated people will become unemployable too from pilot to tax accountants to web designers to doctors/surgeons to lawyers (every cloud...)
There could be a generous system of universal basic income with people topping up their income in any way they please, or maybe there will be an uneven system where the 'useful' use the new tech to keep the 'useless' under control and out of their way. Or something else entirely.
I would expect substantial changes to society rather than minor readjustments though.
And hopefully further, unfortunately any technology is open to abuse.
Pandora's box has already been opened.
It was opened at least two centuries ago, perhaps a bit further back than that. I find it interesting that much talk happens about the possibilities of artificial intelligence, but in the mean time conversations do not gravitate towards the problems humans have already created forthemselves the entire planet through use of technology. It's something I find really distressing, because our contentment in burying our heads in the sands regarding these things is why we've already spelled our collective doom.
But that is, perhaps, being a bit overdramatic and overly pessimistic. Nevertheless, here is what we know. We know for a fact that present levels of human population and activity only exist because of technology. As such, present levels of human population and activity can only continue to exist if humans continue to use these technologies. As I said, we've already opened pandora's box. We have already used it to massively overshoot the carrying capacity of this planet for the species. We are already beholden to it, and as those crutches continue to fall out from under us, there will be a pretty significant population crash and civilization as we know it will change. And if we're actually serious about mitigating some of this, we need to change our relationship to technology now. Not some time tomorrow because artificial intelligence or whatever, the relationship needs to be changed now. It needed to be changed yesterday, honestly.
It was opened at least two centuries ago, perhaps a bit further back than that. I find it interesting that much talk happens about the possibilities of artificial intelligence, but in the mean time conversations do not gravitate towards the problems humans have already created for
But that is, perhaps, being a bit overdramatic and overly pessimistic. Nevertheless, here is what we know. We know for a fact that present levels of human population and activity only exist because of technology. As such, present levels of human population and activity can only continue to exist if humans continue to use these technologies. As I said, we've already opened pandora's box. We have already used it to massively overshoot the carrying capacity of this planet for the species. We are already beholden to it, and as those crutches continue to fall out from under us, there will be a pretty significant population crash and civilization as we know it will change. And if we're actually serious about mitigating some of this, we need to change our relationship to technology now. Not some time tomorrow because artificial intelligence or whatever, the relationship needs to be changed now. It needed to be changed yesterday, honestly.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
Thus dissent and anarchy
Rather like the gun, technology is as dangerous as the person holding it.
I am not suggesting techno-utopianism, but I'm not shoving that possibility aside. I'm objecting to groundless fears, often based on fictional films. The industrial revolution "Was going to free us from the burdens of labor" according to whom? A specific technology requires a specific policy and ethic. Policy and ethics have changed to take into account industrial changes which were by nature large scale. The more clocks you made at once the better your profit margin. AI has the potential to change that dynamic.
I stopped eating at McDonalds when I realized that the burgers were made of ground up penguin beaks. Just think about all the penguins who cannot crack their seeds, now; and its because of McDonalds.
PureX
Veteran Member
... Exactly the kind of thinking that renders us immune to wisdom.
PureX
Veteran Member
We don't develop real solutions to problems because developing band-aids for problems that never get solved keep the profits rolling in, indefinitely. I'm sorry, but I think your view of AI is wildly naive.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
... Exactly the kind of thinking that renders us immune to wisdom.
Sometimes all the wisdom in the world will not guarantee survival.
As always the only thing that relieves oppression is the occasional maverick who turns on the system at great personal cost, and then sometimes more practical people rally to them. Thinking that technology is going to destroy us is a naive fear. Realizing that it can destroy us is practical but only if we also realize its potential to benefit us. Take for example nuclear power. We should be using a lot more of it, but we are not because of lots of groundless fear. AI is another technology that must be leveraged to benefit or it will remain in the domain of weapons manufacturers.
Augustus
…
People have been predicting that labour saving tech will lead to a life of leisure for the average person since the 19th C.
Do you believe all AI fears are groundless, or you just object specifically to the groundless fears while acknowledging there are legitimate reasons to be concerned?
Its the tendency to only see AI as a problem which I object to.
Augustus
…
But you would agree that, as well as benefits, it also has the potential for causing great harms and this is something we should be concerned about?
We should be aware but not concerned, just like with airplanes, automobiles, programming and large construction equipment. Its easy to have another Y2K bug scare without understanding the specifics. Epic mentioned the kiosks at McDonalds. Well, I consider those a stab in the back and generally don't go to McDonalds because of them. I also won't use a robotic cashier if I can avoid it. This is not concern or panic, but it is a choice that I make with awareness. I think if people are concerned without understanding the technology they will panic, and it will like when people protested against nuclear energy and made our reliance upon fossil fuels worse instead of being informed. Being scared and being alarmed felt good.
What about Amazon though? How am I going to avoid using robots if the cashiers at Walmart are robots, and Amazon's fulfillment process is through robots? Well...I don't know, yet. I could stop buying things except through other sellers. It should be a rational process. If I panic then...I might start opposing all use of robots and wind up hurting my own self in the process.
Epic Beard Man
Bearded Philosopher
hmm ok