https://medium.com/basic-income/deep-learning-is-going-to-teach-us-all-the-lesson-of-our-lives-jobs-are-for-machines-7c6442e37a49#.ahv5oy2mg
tl;dr dla ludzi, którzy próbują być mądrzy w 2016 roku bez znajomości angielskiego (wasz problem że ominie was wiele diabelnie interesujących informacji w tekście źródłowym)
Od 1990 roku routine works przestały wzrastać i utrzymywały się na stałym poziomie, od 2008 roku powoli spadają.
Automatyzacja pozbywa się routine works (praca fizyczna i umysłowa) - i niedługo zacznie pozbywać się też non-routine works (both physical and cognitive).
Ludzkość musi szybko zacząć zadawać sobie pytania, czy chce "setki miliony ludzi na krawędzi nędzy, z powodu braku dostępnej pracy? - jeżeli nie, musi rozważyć UBI - universal basic income (uniwersalny podstawowy dochód)"
Aktualnie Szwajcaria, Finlandia, Holandia i Kanada kombinują z UBI.
Where once all four types saw growth, the stuff that is routine stagnated back in 1990. This happened because routine labor is easiest for technology to shoulder. Rules can be written for work that doesn’t change, and that work can be better handled by machines.
A world with Amelia and Viv — and the countless other AI counterparts coming online soon — in combination with robots like Boston Dynamics’ next generation Atlas portends, is a world where machines can do all four types of jobs and that means serious societal reconsiderations. If a machine can do a job instead of a human, should any human be forced at the threat of destitution to perform that job? Should income itself remain coupled to employment, such that having a job is the only way to obtain income, when jobs for many are entirely unobtainable? If machines are performing an increasing percentage of our jobs for us, and not getting paid to do them, where does that money go instead? And what does it no longer buy? Is it even possible that many of the jobs we’re creating don’t need to exist at all, and only do because of the incomes they provide? These are questions we need to start asking, and fast.
+ Fortunately, people are beginning to ask these questions, and there’s an answer that’s building up momentum. The idea is to put machines to work for us, but empower ourselves to seek out the forms of remaining work we as humans find most valuable, by simply providing everyone a monthly paycheck independent of work. This paycheck would be granted to all citizens unconditionally, and its name is universal basic income. By adopting UBI, aside from immunizing against the negative effects of automation, we’d also be decreasing the risks inherent in entrepreneurship, and the sizes of bureaucracies necessary to boost incomes. It’s for these reasons, it has cross-partisan support, and is even now in the beginning stages of possible implementation in countries like Switzerland, Finland, the Netherlands, and Canada.
+
During a panel discussion at the end of 2015 at Singularity University, prominent data scientist Jeremy Howard asked “Do you want half of people to starve because they literally can’t add economic value, or not?” before going on to suggest, ”If the answer is not, then the smartest way to distribute the wealth is by implementing a universal basic income.”
Komentarze (3)
najlepsze
What we're finding is that any kind of computational challenge that is sufficiently well-defined, we can build a machine that can do better," Littman says. "We can build machines that are optimized to that one task, and people are not optimized to one task. Once you narrow the task to playing Go, the machine is going to be better, ultimately."
Pewnie wiecie, że sieć neuronowa która pokonała mistrza w Go i
1. Systematyka - routine czy non routine work - czytałem niedawno na wykopie że Mercedes planuje zastąpienie ludzi automatami bo daje to większą elastyczność w przy planowaniu produkcji. Czyli jednak routine nie jest takie routine do końca jakby się wydawało.
2. Technika - pomijając małe wyjątki dzisiejsze maszyny przemysłowe mają konstrukcję cepa z zegarkiem Montana na uchwycie - prawdziwe AI