Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SirQuiamus]

As Lee Kuan Yew said: "Humanity is not equal."

Which is true. Let's say I have a drug that would allow the dumbest person alive to be as clever as the smartest, but it had the same effect on people of all intelligence. So, the smartest would be an order of magnitude smarter than the dumbest.

Is it equal to give them all this drug? Is it fair to give them all this drug? What should I do?

Why should the smartest man not have his full potential realised because it would make the drug enhanced dumbest person look bad?

The crates thing is dishonest. It presents a binary situation (the ability to see / not see) that is very rare in the modern world. If I cannot reach the highest shelf because a short person needed one of my crates to reach the lowest, is that fair on me? You would deny me my great potential to give someone potential that is essentially meaningless.

You should not ask if it is fair to take the giant's crates away. You should ask if it is fair to cut his legs off.

How do you reconcile this...

At the moment, we could put literally 75% of people out of their jobs just by implementing automation (and not even particularly complex or detailed automation, either).

...with this?

If your worth as a human being is based on your economic contribution, what will happen when you lose your job as an inevitable result of automation? As we all know, employed people are smart, competent, and productive members of society, whereas unemployed people are dumb and incompetent wastes of space – by definition. There's no arguing about your allotted place in society: if you ever find yourself in the latter category, it means that your "great potential" has been revoked, and you are now officially worthless in the eyes of your betters. Don't bother complaining about getting your "legs" chopped off; your employers merely found out that you were walking on stilts all along, and they rightfully took them away from you. You don't deserve that kind of privilege because you're just not worthy. Humanity is not equal. Get bent.

[Graknorke]

This analogy has really broken down and now doesn't make sense any more.

[nullBolt]

<snip>

How do you reconcile this...

At the moment, we could put literally 75% of people out of their jobs just by implementing automation (and not even particularly complex or detailed automation, either).

...with this?

If your worth as a human being is based on your economic contribution, what will happen when you lose your job as an inevitable result of automation? As we all know, employed people are smart, competent, and productive members of society, whereas unemployed people are dumb and incompetent wastes of space – by definition. There's no arguing about your allotted place in society: if you ever find yourself in the latter category, it means that your "great potential" has been revoked, and you are now officially worthless in the eyes of your betters. Don't bother complaining about getting your "legs" chopped off; your employers merely found out that you were walking on stilts all along, and they rightfully took them away from you. You don't deserve that kind of privilege because you're just not worthy. Humanity is not equal. Get bent.

How are they mutually exclusive?

You can retrain, relearn, reskill. Adaptability is the greatest skill a person can have. You act like I believe every unemployed person should be stamped out of existence, which is clearly not the case.

If your argument is so flimsy you have to suggest that I believe in genocide of the unemployed, which has not been mentioned at all here, in order to make a point against me, maybe your opinions are wrong?

Now, maybe there is an eventual situation where Johnny NoGood can't get even a manual labour job. Maybe there is nothing for Johnny in this theoretical world. Maybe the world has moved on from Mr NoGood and anything he is capable of doing. It's a sad and regretful thing, but so is the extinction of the dinosaurs. Should mammals have suffocated in the choking dust so the dinosaurs could survive?

[Orange Wizard]

If your worth as a human being is based on your economic contribution, what will happen when you lose your job as an inevitable result of automation?

Wait, since when is your worth as a human determined by economic contribution? I didn't get that from nullBot's post at all.

If people are looking down on those without jobs in a world where jobs are few and far between, those people are colossal asshats. Much like people looking down on those without jobs in our world where jobs are actually kinda hard to get.

[SirQuiamus]

How are they mutually exclusive?

If "potential" is defined as the ability to be a productive member of society, then believing that some people have higher innate potential than others is at odds with the observation that everyone is replaceable and potentially useless in a post-labour society.

You can retrain, relearn, reskill. Adaptability is the greatest skill a person can have. You act like I believe every unemployed person should be stamped out of existence, which is clearly not the case.

Yes, adaptability is great, but can a flesh-and-blood human ever be as adaptable as a fully-programmable robot?

If your argument is so flimsy you have to suggest that I believe in genocide of the unemployed, which has not been mentioned at all here, in order to make a point against me, maybe your opinions are wrong?

No-one (except PoH) is talking about genocide, where did you get that from? I'm just trying to show you the logical consequences of holding the beliefs that you hold.

Now, maybe there is an eventual situation where Johnny NoGood can't get even a manual labour job. Maybe there is nothing for Johnny in this theoretical world. Maybe the world has moved on from Mr NoGood and anything he is capable of doing. It's a sad and regretful thing, but so is the extinction of the dinosaurs. Should mammals have suffocated in the choking dust so the dinosaurs could survive?

And your implicit assumption seems to be that you could never, ever become a Johnny NoGood in a post-labour society? Because you're somehow "taller" than other people – maybe not exceptionally tall, and absolutely not the tallest by any means – but still definitely above average, is that right? Oh, c'mon...

We're all Johnny NoGoods, m8. Time to wake up.

EDIT:

If your worth as a human being is based on your economic contribution, what will happen when you lose your job as an inevitable result of automation?

Wait, since when is your worth as a human determined by economic contribution? I didn't get that from nullBot's post at all.

If people are looking down on those without jobs in a world where jobs are few and far between, those people are colossal asshats. Much like people looking down on those without jobs in our world where jobs are actually kinda hard to get.

I wish that were the case, but the world is not as humane as you make it out to be.

[Loud Whispers]

Well, then what's the problem? As long as utility is being derived from them somehow I would consider that a success. After all, in your scenario, everyone gets what they want: the intelligent get time to contemplate while the stupid get food and shelter. Everyone is happy.

How? In this scenario the stupid are killed and the intelligent forced into subsistence farming, that sounds like everyone doesn't get what they want. Deriving utility is not the same as maximizing potential, if you sincerely believe using someone who could become a future physicist as a subsistence farmer is perfectly ok, you have a disturbing lack of imagination and a worrying acceptance of dysfunction. Thinking on it, that's kinda the whole plot to Interstellar, an incompetent American education system trying to make subsistence farmers out of future physicists lel

Contrast North Korea with Singapore. In Singapore their most intelligent are given special attention when they are young in order to help develop whatever their intellectual talents are and enter a knowledge based economy with the highest skilled, best educated and most intelligent thinkers around. For everyone else they get quality vocational education, and they worked hard to combat the Chinese stereotype of vocational education being the last resort for low achievers by setting it out to be world class education in vocational and technical skills, so much so that you end up with a system where you have highly skilled intelligent and educated STEM peeps and highly skilled and educated technicians working in tandem to btfo everyone else.
In North Korea a quarter of the people are full-time farmers and in times of famine nearly everyone takes part in farming. That North Korea's most intelligent still remain useful when employed as farmers does not disguise the miserable failure of North Korea's wasted opportunity, a great mind spent sowing rice is not one that could've been making breakthroughs in how to revolutionize North Korean agriculture.

Perhaps we do need stupid people. Why are we constrained by this equality fad? We are creatures ruled by nothing but status. We must have something to look up to and something to look down on. Let the cream rise to the top and cement the positions; we cannot allow transition between statuses or else the system collapses in a haze of power-grabbing and backstabbing.

There is a natural order, it is always changing - cementing it leads to a situation where idiots sit at the top.

But we're cursed with ambition: how do you stop that? Redefine satisfaction. Let the top castes' dreams loose: that will push mankind ever upward. But for the lower castes, engineer education and media to gamify being a good citizen. The hollow joys of rebellion and exploration will be replaced with the satisfaction of 400 points for three hours overtime. One day, you will reach the top score list if you try hard enough.
I know what you're thinking: but what of those born in a lower caste deserving of a higher status? Obviously children will be in a grace period whilst we determine their destined caste via tests and analysis. A lot of this could be streamlined: on-topic, women are simply unfit (Not sexist - it's science) for manual labor and would be excluded. This way, we achieve something better then equality: a society where everyone is exactly where they're meant to be.

Why do you find ambition a curse?

But if they can't be redeemed, if they are talentless, if they can't even provide an ounce of utility, then they must be cast out. Not killed; nothing so inefficient. Let them live out in the wilderness for a while. If they survive, we welcome them back with open arms. If they don't, good riddance.
Can you imagine it? A society with no need for gender quotas (We have drifted from the topic - into something better) or other such nonsense. Everyone in their place, maximizing efficiency. No welfare parasites, no unqualified idiots only placed there by a bureaucratic quota, no loose cogs. A society where all are content and none shall rebel. A society operating like a machine.
We just need to find a way to murder all the useless cretins. Give me a while, I'll think of something.

My example makes Singapore, yours makes North Korea

Which one is the bureaucratic machine where none shall rebel and useless cretins are shot?

[LordBucket]

If "potential" is defined as the ability to be a productive member of society

I think miscommunication has occurred.

By my reading, nullBolt didn't mean anything even remotely close to that.  In his original mention of "potential" as quoted by you in this post, he was speaking about very general things like intelligence and the ability to reach shelves. He also mentioned cheesecakes's crate example, which concerned the ability of people to watch a baseball game, which obviously has nothing to do with contribution to society at all.

The connection of the word "potential" to the context of "job value" was made by by Loud Whispers in this post...and he was responding to someone else entirely.

By my reading, nullBolt was saying that people aren't all equal in ability, and sacrificing the greatness of the great to raise the lowly to mediocre is not a good trade. And by my reading, Loud Whispers was agreeing with pengunofhonor's statement that it makes more sense for an employer to hire a more capable employee, who is able to generate better results for him, than to hire the less capable employee and train him up.

Yes, those two ideas are similar, but they weren't talking to each other, and they were speaking in different contexts. Both of them used the word 'potential' in their posts. I think you might have conflated the two.

[nullBolt]

If "potential" is defined as the ability to be a productive member of society, then believing that some people have higher innate potential than others is at odds with the observation that everyone is replaceable and potentially useless in a post-labour society.

I think LB answered this.

Yes, adaptability is great, but can a flesh-and-blood human ever be as adaptable as a fully-programmable robot?

No, but so what?

At a certain point, we will create adaptable, self-replicating AI. We will have created life to replace us. Just as we do when we have children. What is your point?

No-one (except PoH) is talking about genocide, where did you get that from? I'm just trying to show you the logical consequences of holding the beliefs that you hold.

Again, I think LB is right in that you've read what I'm saying wrong.

And your implicit assumption seems to be that you could never, ever become a Johnny NoGood in a post-labour society? Because you're somehow "taller" than other people – maybe not exceptionally tall, and absolutely not the tallest by any means – but still definitely above average, is that right? Oh, c'mon...

We're all Johnny NoGoods, m8. Time to wake up.

Even if that was the case... So what?

What is the point you're trying to make?

That ultimately everyone will be phased out?

[wierd]

In the face of perfect, self-modifying robot laborers, YES. All human labor will become less efficient, economically, than using the machines. This includes top level positions, like CEOs, because the AIs will be better at forecasting and acting on very complicated long term strategies, with deep levels of nested contingencies-- and as more and more actors become AIs, the ability of the actors to predict each other will increase.

Make them emotionless, and you have robot janitors who have no emotional distress at being janitors, and the robot CEO values the robot janitor and its contribution to the operation of the robot-run business consistent with the calculable value (in terms of upkeep, prevention of malfunctions in ambulating robot workers due to an unobstructed path for movement, etc) that said robot janitor provides.

In short, humans, and the whole profit system they have created, will be wholly superseded by robots, if perfect self-modifying AI is ever developed.

For the same reason that employers do not want to train people but instead want "Perfect fit" employees, in this post-labor environment, there is simply no benefit to hiring humans to do--- ANYTHING. The robots with advanced AI would simply be better at everything, require fewer resources, can work longer hours-- even endlessly, barring maintenance-- don't complain about work conditions-- in fact, dont even require breathable air--- so cheaper to run the factories anyway simply from environmental needs-- etc.

The disadvantages and cost centers associated with employing humans would make any business that does so less fit in that new market, and their competitors would quickly overtake them.

Robots do not require "creativity", if they have comprehensive understanding of the problem domain. They can computationally derive the absolute maximum possible efficiency, and then shoot directly for that. Human creativity is the result of biological computation's limits being resolved in a "good enough is good enough" manner via evolution. real, strong general AI could shoot for absolute ideal, and achieve it. Any product designed by robots, would ultimately become better than anything humans could design, given that the robots fully comprehend the problem domain involved.

Take for instance, the problem domain of a game of Go. All possible legal moves for this game have now been computationally derived.

http://tromp.github.io/go/legal.html

This means that a general AI could make use of this solution space, and with it (and with enough processing power) outmatch any human Go player.

Machines dominate by brute force through knowing the problem domain. They do not need creativity.

[SirQuiamus]

By my reading, nullBolt didn't mean anything even remotely close to that.  In his original mention of "potential" as quoted by you in this post, he was speaking about very general things like intelligence and the ability to reach shelves.

How do you measure such "general" traits as "intelligence" and "ability to do [whatever]" in a person? By comparing their behaviour with generally accepted standards of behaving "intelligently" or being "competent" at whatever task. Sounds perfectly objective, right? Right?

No. Have you forgotten that we live in a capitalist reality? If you inherit a billion dollars from your poppa and invest them in Google stocks, you'll be richer than any "intelligent" person who has ever "earned" their way by relying solely on their own inherent "abilities." And if you have a billion dollars, people will think that you're "smart," "competent," and "able" even if you're utterly incompetent and rock-stupid. Case in point: it starts with a "T" and rhymes with "rump."

If you think that people have innate value besides their objective economic value, you are a bad capitalist, shame on you. If you are not a capitalist, why are we even having this argument?

Even if that was the case... So what?
What is the point you're trying to make?
That ultimately everyone will be phased out?

Everyone except the richest percentile. And neither of us will ever be in the richest percentile, you can count on that.

Try saying "So what?" again when you're living in the street, m8.

[nullBolt]

Everyone except the richest percentile. And neither of us will ever be in the richest percentile, you can count on that.

Try saying "So what?" again when you're living in the street, m8.

Even the richest will be phased out eventually, Quiamus. Everyone will be phased out.

We'll reach the point where the idea of a scarcity market is ludicrous.

[SirQuiamus]

Even the richest will be phased out eventually, Quiamus. Everyone will be phased out.

Not until robots can legally inherit property.

[mainiac]

No. Have you forgotten that we live in a capitalist reality? If you inherit a billion dollars from your poppa and invest them in Google stocks, you'll be richer than any "intelligent" person who has ever "earned" their way by relying solely on their own inherent "abilities." And if you have a billion dollars, people will think that you're "smart," "competent," and "able" even if you're utterly incompetent and rock-stupid. Case in point: it starts with a "T" and rhymes with "rump."

Oh yeah?

"Proverbs, the chapter 'never bend to envy.' I've had that thing all of my life where people are bending to envy."

Not until robots can legally inherit property.

The robots wont need to phase us out then, they'll just own us.

#checkmateatheists

[nullBolt]

Even the richest will be phased out eventually, Quiamus. Everyone will be phased out.

Not until robots can legally inherit property.

I don't think they'll really ever need to. We're talking a point beyond property.

[SirQuiamus]

Hrrmph! I'm green with envy for his healthy orange complexion.