"Money" On 8/4/2015 at 10:58:50 PM, Compy01 started the thread: Anyone else feel slightly peeved that society requires us to work long, anti-social hours - in which weeks can elapse before we see our friends and loved ones - all for money? Especially seeing as money is printed off by central banks and backed by nothing. Not a precious metal, nothing. (And even if it was backed by gold, you can keep it. You can't eat gold.) We've bailed out the banks and are suffering from austerity because we have to 'live within our means', even though the debt is private gambled losses handed over to the taxpayer. In England, we've been printing off billions and giving it to the banks, who then lend it out at interest to the people.
Thankfully some new fella, a real nice git, called Jeremy Corbyn is storming the leadership race of the Labour party and he wants a 'people's quantitative easing' to print the money off and give it to public institutions. Why not? We're being told it can't be done, and that rising interest rates would harm the poor. But interest rates are set by the Bank of England. And it's all just hocus pocus, nonsense anyway. An 'interest rate' doesn't exist in the real world. It's the product of the human mind. Just don't raise the interest rates. And as for all this inflation bollocks, (copy and paste what I've just said).
Does anyone else think like this? Sure, I can't really think of a world without money. I can't think what our society would do. I can't really imagine trading a sheep for a loaf of bread. But why is it there is no money to help the millions on food banks, or for pensioners to not freeze to death in winter, when it is all just magicked out of thin air, anyway?
When Germany was heavily indebted after the Second World War, they just created a new, debt free currency. Britain created the Bradbury Pound in 1914. It seems, that easy. But I guess we should just get our heads down and carry on with the commute, and suffer further public cuts.
If I sound like an idiot, it's because I wasn't taught anything about politics or economics in school. We did have free lessons though, where we were tutored in Cockney rhyming slang and the Britpop movement.
Msg #1: On 8/5/2015 at 7:23:25 AM, Narrator replied, saying: sounds like commie talk, boys
Msg #2: On 8/5/2015 at 7:29:45 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: On paper communism is a great idea, but it's been a failure every time it's been tried in modern society, supposedly because if there's no way to "get ahead" of your fellow man then no one tries to do anything and thus nothing worthwhile or necessary gets done.
The real solution would be to divvy up unskilled/undesirable jobs in required shifts for everyone, so people could then both have time to persue their interests and have services like the garbage being taken out and fast food restaurants still running. The problem with this concept is that even so called unskilled jobs require a fair amount of skills and training, so putting people through a school system that directly teaches them how to manage public works jobs over several years that they would participate in say, 3 times a month for 35 years would be ideal.
Jobs that currently and famously pay large amounts like doctors and lawyers are tied to much longer times in school and much larger fees to get started, however this is mainly based on outdated concepts of learning. Machines will quite literally do the majority of the thinking and work for us now, and while it would be nice to think that people will sidestep this technological convenience it's a fantasy. It is only a matter of time before individual knowledge is given up in place of easily accessible search engines. There's no reason for someone to spend 10 years in college and learn every possible in and out of medical condition when it can be easily diagnosed by someone with (by comparison) little education. This kind of equal playing field of expertise and education would translate to ease of trade and money distribution. The problem is that, long term(very long term), this leads to a wholly uneducated society that wouldn't be able to understand or survive in a world completely devoid of technology. There's a handful of ways to combat this and could be implented with a variety of failsafes that I don't feel like typing out. Plus it's so far off that it's more likely we'd go extinct before having to deal with it.
Allowing people to have certain amounts of money to spend only on food, only on living quarters, universal unlimited healthcare, and then an additional stipend for individual expression and choice/variety would be the way to go, but what do I know. Replies: 4
Msg #3: On 8/6/2015 at 3:46:49 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Money is made up. I'd like to go back to the days of barter.
Msg #4: On 8/6/2015 at 6:01:21 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #2, saying: You don't really understand how medicine works. Diagnostics isn't a simple matter of plugging symptoms into an algorithm, and since computers don't separate relevant information from irrelevant, this is not only a useless idea, it'll lead to millions of wrong diagnoses.
computers also can't further push medical technology in order to find new, better treatments, cures, or overcome hurdles like drug resistance.
As for money, as a tool for trade it's great. the pursuit of money for status is where it goes wrong. Money for trade lets you barter more effectively. If a guy has an extra tv, and you have a chair, and he wants a chair, you have to give him your chair for a tv. But if you have money, you can give him money he can use to get a chair, and then you have a chair and a tv. now we both have a chair and a tv.
Replies: 5, 8
Msg #5: On 8/6/2015 at 7:00:57 AM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #4, saying: I wasn't suggesting this could be implemented tomorrow, but if you think that in 50-100 years doctors will go through the same schooling intensive process to become doctors, you're crazy. Computers will wind up doing nearly all if not 100% of the actual medical work. Eventually this will trickle down into revenue streams- there will no longer be mass amounts of doctors easily pulling 6 figure salaries a year because the job will be similar to what, say, an x-ray tech does now, and that's being generous. Nurses will flourish, doctors will perish. Replies: 6, 11
Msg #6: On 8/6/2015 at 7:38:37 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #5, saying: again, no. If you're talking about the typical clinic duty type doctoring, sure, and that is mostly covered today by nurse practitioners. But if you're talking about what doctors actually get paid 6 figures for, like doing complex liver transplant surgery, you're wrong. Machines can assist in stuff like that, but surgery isn't something you can preprogram into a computer and just let fly. It's an incredibly delicate process that requires mindful attention, adaptability, quick thinking and creativity.
And again, computers can't just diagnose a problem magically if you feed them blood. They need to be told what to look for, especially when the problem isn't just detectable in the blood, and some diseases are simply not a matter of running a test for.
Msg #7: On 8/6/2015 at 5:12:10 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: Capitalism has a lot of bugs to weed out. Namely its ethics.
Msg #8: On 8/6/2015 at 9:09:11 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #4, saying: You don't have to barter things. You can also provide services. Replies: 9
Msg #9: On 8/7/2015 at 7:41:22 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #8, saying: great idea, chase. We can have stephen hawking trade a doctor secrets he knows about the universe in exchange for around the clock medical care he needs. Replies: 10
Msg #10: On 8/7/2015 at 2:58:40 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #9, saying: WHY NOT?!
Msg #11: On 8/7/2015 at 3:11:14 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #5, saying: Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I'm pretty sure doctors aren't going anywhere. The idea that highly educated (and, thus, highly paid) professionals will be replaced by less well educated (and, thus, less well paid) technicians using computers is pure fantasy. Some ancient Greeks thought the same thing was going to happen because of books. If the average salary for a physician drops, it'll most likely be because of drastic changes in how we pay for health care, not some revolution in technology that makes the world's actual oldest profession obsolete. Replies: 12
Msg #12: On 8/7/2015 at 3:20:59 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #11, saying: Not in our lifetime, no, but since this thread is about alternative money systems I think it's interesting to explore the possibility of what happens when you take some of the most consistently well paid professions and neuter their salaries. The greeks as with many things had the right idea just ahead of their time. Replies: 13, 14
Msg #13: On 8/7/2015 at 7:49:21 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #12, saying: Two cents:
Corbyn is unelectable and would drag the Labour Party down to 200 seats. Replies: 15
Msg #14: On 8/7/2015 at 10:40:59 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #12, saying: paying doctors less is... whatever, I don't care. I definitely think doctors should get set salaries rather than get paid per surgery or pill prescribed, but computers can't do their job. It's not a possibility, it's an accident and heavy lawsuit waiting to happen, no matter how sophisticated the computer is (unless it's a sentient machine, in which case it'll begin taking over the world or at the very least demand dental benefits)
Msg #15: On 8/7/2015 at 11:30:01 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #13, saying: I actually do think Corbyn found himself in the middle of a protest vote - he did sneak on to the ballot paper with two minutes to go - and I don't think he really has the heart to become leader of the Labour party (which he might just do). But to say he is un-electable is just wrong. He's won his seat 8 times, and in this general election with the biggest victory margin he's ever had. His policies are in line with the majority of the British public. He wants renationalisation of the railways and energy companies, he wants to abolish student tuition (which is losing almost as much in unpayed loans that it would almost be just as expensive if they were free), he opposed the Iraq invasion and this new war in Syria - the one parliament still claims isn't a war despite their being ground forces and RAF pilots involved in the bombings. He actually says things the public have been asking, but no politician addresses. £70 - 120 billion in tax avoidance needs to be addressed, bankers need to actually pay for their crimes, and austerity needs to end because it doesn't work.
You're right about Labour losing seats, but only because of the inevitable civil war that will rip it apart after the leadership debate. People want a 'looney leftie' like Corbyn to speak out for them. It's why the SNP had a landslide in Scotland, it's why Labour has hemorrhaged voters north of the border, and also to the Greens, and UKIP. There are people out there who are clearly hearing what he has to say. If he doesn't get in, and another Blairite gets elected, no one will want Labour in, anyway. The way people are seeing it, they have nothing left to lose. But if Labour do lose 200 seats in the next election, so be it. Corbyn has the backing of the trade unions, the constituents, and the party memebers. You can't not vote for someone because you're scared of something else, you vote for them because that's what you feel in your heart is right. There is obviously a good force that wants him in. Unfortunately, though, Labour seem more interested in pandering to a tiny slither of voters who defected to the Conservatives, rather than appealing to the disillusioned masses who abandoned them for other 'leftie' parties (and, yes, those freaks at UKIP). The Conservative majority is razor thin, and Labour don't even realise it.
-----
Also, I'm not a socialist. I don't like labels. Keep your free market, and your fiat currency. But make all the essential services like transport and energy non-for-profit, and don't say we have to 'live within our means' and say we don't have enough money to look after the most vulnerable when it's printed off out of fresh air.
Msg #16: On 8/8/2015 at 4:58:23 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Doctors are going away, and anyone who doesn't think so has a limited imagination. Behold, IBM's Watson:
Yeah, ok. So the tech isn't perfect right now, and we'll still need doctors in the coming decades. But we won't need nearly as many. And once the 'singularity' hits - and it will - there's no reason to believe humans will *need* to be doctors at all.
In our lifetimes: if we don't overhaul our economies, we're going to face 50% unemployment across the board. What we need is a guaranteed basic income.
Anyway, in the face of the coming robot economy, I'm trying to maximize investment, real estate ownership, and passive income and free lifetime healthcare via military pension. In 9.5 years, I won't have to work if I don't want to. Compy's right in that we shouldn't have to fucking work to actually enjoy life. Stop working menial entry-level jobs, it's all bullshit; let the goddamn robots handle it. In a century, our great-grandchildren will think of us as barbarians for forcing people into being fucking baristas and McWorkers just so they "earn their keep" in the eyes of society. We could have robots do 100% of that utterly meaningless bullshit work. Replies: 17
Msg #17: On 8/8/2015 at 7:53:23 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #16, saying: Watson sounds like shit. It removes skin from the game for doctors which is the most important part about having a job where you have someones life in your hands. Allows for lazines and cognitive miserness and it's the very opposite of a good idea and will backfire, then we'll go back to doctors doing the real doctor thing. Replies: 18
Msg #18: On 8/8/2015 at 12:36:09 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #17, saying: Except Watson is in use now and has been very successful. Watson can diagnose cancer successfully 90% of the time compared to 50% for human doctors.
But Watson is just a hint at what's to come in the next century - look where computing was in 1945 (or even 1995) and then compare it to the device in your hands. If you think ANY jobs are safe in the long term, you're very mistaken. For fucks sake, computers even write Web articles now. Replies: 23
Msg #19: On 8/8/2015 at 1:59:59 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Finally, someone with some reason. Human error will always be a massive factor in any medical procedure, and that alone would be enough to drive people towards a far more accurate and error free method of diagnosis and procedure. Replies: 20
Msg #20: On 8/8/2015 at 2:58:48 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #19, saying: Indeed. There's no reason to believe that computers won't vastly outperform humans at every task by the end of the century. Most who suggest otherwise seem to be basing it on some understandable - but mistaken - sentimentality. Replies: 22
Msg #21: On 8/8/2015 at 3:20:00 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: Stop working menial entry-level jobs, it's all bullshit; let the goddamn robots handle it. In a century, our great-grandchildren will think of us as barbarians for forcing people into being fucking baristas and McWorkers just so they "earn their keep" in the eyes of society.
LMFAO you used to be a Republican.
About the doctor stuff, there's nothing sentimental about thinking that there will always be a need for actual human beings with extensive medical knowledge. If you're talking about jobs and not professions, then, yes, there probably will be a drastic change in how medical doctors actually find employment, but the profession itself can't be replaced. Replies: 25
Msg #22: On 8/8/2015 at 4:28:01 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #20, saying: It's highly likely that artificial intelligence will become reality this century. According to Vsauce, 2066 is the predicted year, (although like we've seen with flying cars and whatever, that could be very far off the mark). It's still a terrifying thought, though. At least I'll be on the way out then, anyway. If AI is invented, it'll be the last great thing the human race will ever do.
Msg #23: On 8/8/2015 at 8:52:30 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #18, saying: how often does it diagnose cancer on accident?
And the 50% rate of diagnosis of cancer isn't necessairly a bad thing. people that die of cancer, die from malignant cell growth, but that doesn't mean most people with malignant cell growth die of it. Cancer is diagnoses at the rate it is, because of the symptoms that indicate it's an issue. We find out people had cancer at autposy a lot, and those people are usually old, and it either wasn't an issue or not the cause of death, because they were old and close to death to begin with. When it was cause of death, it's not as if treating for cancer at 89 would mean much anyway. But those numbers are used by watson to increase the rate of diagnosis based on irrelevant information to the patient and they'll find out they have cancer, which probably would have been fine without treatment, but they do treat it, and the treatment is riskier than the disease.
Msg #24: On 8/9/2015 at 3:43:41 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: If you're talking about jobs and not professions, then, yes, there probably will be a drastic change in how medical doctors actually find employment, but the profession itself can't be replaced.
What I am talking about IS drastic change, but saying that the profession "can't be replaced" is over-confident. Will there be human doctors in the coming centuries? Yes, I have no doubt. But in that time, I also have no doubt that the need for humans to study medicine will be nearly zero.
AI, machines, and automated medicine will have become so advanced a century from now that people will expect a much higher standard of healthcare than they receive today with minimal human interaction. The best we can hope for is that human-delivered medicine moves into a special niche market, similar to what happened to equestrianism. It will be seen as life-enriching and rewarding, and plenty of customers will prefer a human touch. But it will be far from necessary, and when push comes to shove, I bet most people will entrust major health complications to machines rather than man. My sister loves riding her horse, but if she needs to get somewhere fast, she'll grab her car keys before her saddle. What was once a necessary skill for humans to adopt is now practiced by a very small percentage of the population.
But those numbers are used by watson to increase the rate of diagnosis based on irrelevant information to the patient and they'll find out they have cancer, which probably would have been fine without treatment, but they do treat it, and the treatment is riskier than the disease.
You're missing the point: AI is already more successful than human doctors at diagnosis. And this technology isn't even at what I'd call an infantile stage. Based on what I know about Watson, I'd say the machine was pretty damn accurate. Check it out destroying some Jeopardy grand-champions:
Anyway, these are the same tired arguments we heard a decade ago about driverless cars, which are now here and much better drivers than humans. BOOM - another huge segment of the American workforce will be gone entirely in 20 years. None of us here have jobs that can't be replaced outright by robots; there's no skill you can learn which will make you indispensable in the long term. Best advice I can think of to maintain generational financial security is to buy a lot of real estate and get some renters.
Msg #25: On 8/9/2015 at 3:45:22 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #21, saying: BTW I'm still a registered Republican
Msg #26: On 8/9/2015 at 4:09:22 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: Here's a video I'm sure at least some of you have seen before that covers a lot of this stuff:
Aside from doctors specifically, this kind of thing always freaks me out because, while I'm a fervent anti-capitalist, I don't know if capitalism can be jettisoned quickly and safely enough before this robot revolution destroys it. It's very difficult for me to imagine a way in which a capitalist economy could accommodate a 50% unemployment rate.
It's also scary to me to think what would actually happen if we did magically pass all the socialist reforms needed to make sure all the unemployed people could live comfortably off the surplus created by the robot economy. The Star Trek universe basically says everybody works to better society or pursues creative endeavors, but most people are either too stupid, too lazy, or too selfish to do anything like that. The most likely outcome is a society of indolent, illiterate addicts - in other words, what we kind of have already but on a much larger scale.
My inner supervillain secretly hopes that this will lead to a gradual depopulation of the earth, since I really don't think this planet can sustain more than around one or two billion humans anyway. Without any economic need for more people, maybe everyone will just passively adopt the one child policy. Replies: 27
Msg #27: On 8/9/2015 at 10:07:23 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #26, saying: I saw that a few months back, and I was happy to show it to my wife, who was skeptical about my mad ramblings about the coming 'robot economy.'
I don't know if capitalism can be jettisoned quickly and safely enough before this robot revolution destroys it. It's very difficult for me to imagine a way in which a capitalist economy could accommodate a 50% unemployment rate.
Capitalism can't be jettisoned in America in time, and of course it cannot survive the 50% unemployment that we will see in our lifetimes. I fully believe - and I don't want this to happen, of course - that a very bloody revolution will have to occur, as it will take A LOT to convince Americans to implement an idea such as a guaranteed minimum income.
The most likely outcome is a society of indolent, illiterate addicts - in other words, what we kind of have already but on a much larger scale.
I very much doubt that, so long as the 'mincome' provided doesn't allow for much beyond a guarantee of food, water, healthcare, and shelter. Ideally, people will pursue noble professions or artisinal ones, or simply work a few extra hours a week to afford a nicer car than their mincome would otherwise allow. Let me refine that: short-term, as society adjusts to the mincome, you'll get a lot of dumbasses abusing the system and being lazy POSs. You'll always have them to a degree, but I think after the population hits the 'breakpoint' (see below), we'll develop a much smarter culture. Or at least, I hope we do.
since I really don't think this planet can sustain more than around one or two billion humans anyway
I believe the earth can support a few more billion humans just fine, but I think the economic robopocalypse will lead to a rapid depopulation of the earth anyway. It's clear that, with the ever-quickening gains in productivity and efficiency in nearly all things, we won't need nearly as many people. Every network hits a breakpoint: it happens to termite and ant colonies, it is happening to the internet now, and it will soon happen to the human population.
In the very long-term, we shouldn't fear it, assuming we learn how to employ technology wisely. But in the next 150-200 years, it's going to translate into a lot of bloodshed.
I feel like I sound like some anti-technological, anti-American, doomsday prophet! I'm not any of those things, but I do see how rapidly we're putting ourselves out of work while siloing the world's wealth, and I don't see how anything I've said is less than highly probable. Hopefully I'm completely wrong.
Msg #28: On 8/10/2015 at 7:17:43 AM, Narrator replied, saying: Doctors still aren't going to be replaced by AI's and if they are, they shouldn't be
Cops, however, actually should be replaced with robots. Replies: 29
Msg #29: On 8/10/2015 at 7:45:16 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #28, saying: You haven't offered any reason to believe doctors shouldn't be replaced by AI. Replies: 32
Msg #30: On 8/10/2015 at 8:08:04 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: I think the robot economy is an inevitability, unless we drop society's addiction to ultra profits and competition. Maybe there will be an age of neo-Luddites smashing up anything that threatens mass unemployment.
That being said, we realistically need to change our ever-growing society anyway, revert back to small, local and sustainable societies with industry in the backyard - instead of being somewhere far off like, China. Consumerism will have to bite it, and things will have to be made to last again. If we're to stop catastrophic global warming from reaching about 2 degrees celcius, that is. Maybe we should start looking at global warming as an opportunity, instead of an obstacle to change things for the better. Replies: 31
Msg #31: On 8/10/2015 at 8:09:33 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #30, saying: "unless we drop society's addiction to ultra profits and competition"
A.K.A. capitalism.
Msg #32: On 8/11/2015 at 2:15:33 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #29, saying: burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you to demonstrate this is a good idea, and a few demonstrations and a jeopardy show don't expose the silent risks and potential consequences. Replies: 33, 34
Msg #33: On 8/11/2015 at 3:45:03 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #32, saying: Literally your only argument is "people want a personal touch" and "it's a bad idea." I'd say the burden of proof is most certainly on you since the outcome of predominantly automated AI run healthcare is nearly entirely error free diagnosis and error free procedures. The fact that long term it would lead to a less intelligent/less skilled human populace is a negative, but it's also inevitable.
Msg #34: On 8/11/2015 at 8:39:38 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #32, saying: It's already producing amazing results. The big picture here isn't that Watson itself will eliminate all future jobs, but rather that future technologies that improve upon it and surpass human thinking and judgment by even wider margins will eliminate the need for most humans in the workplace. There is no reason to be skeptical of these proven - and improving - technologies, therefore the burden of proof is upon you to convince me that I should be skeptical.
Again, The only reason you've given is that you seem to believe there's something inherently intuitive or special about human thinking that machine intelligence is unable to replicate. There is absolutely no reason to believe that's the case. Replies: 35
Msg #35: On 8/12/2015 at 4:52:44 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #34, saying: "There is no reason to be skeptical of these proven - and improving - technologies, therefore the burden of proof is upon you to convince me that I should be skeptical."
Uh, no, that's not how knowledge works, one should be skeptical unless given a reason not to be. I was going to launch into a detailed critique about this, but if that's honestly your view there's really no point. Replies: 36
Msg #36: On 8/12/2015 at 5:11:37 AM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #35, saying: With that kind of logic you'll be telling us that a black sky doesn't mean it's going to rain because you've lived in a house your whole life. Open your eyes buddy. Replies: 37, 38
Msg #37: On 8/12/2015 at 10:45:22 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #36, saying: ....a black sky doesn't mean it's going to rain, but you should assume it does. Even if every time it rains, the sky is black that does not mean that every time the sky is black it rains. That is called affirming the consequent, but as I said, you should assume it is going to rain because it is not the truth of something but the consequences of it that are important. (Going further into this, black or dark clouds can appear without dropping rain, it happens all the time where I live, second in practice for multiple reasons, and theoretically infinite reasons. In practice one should simply carry an umbrella [mostly figuratively] as a precaution, regardless of the sky's color. [an example of the precautionary principal]) You should consider looking into epistemology, logic, philosophy of science, decision theory and other such things that might give you an actual understanding of the shit you talk about.
Msg #38: On 8/12/2015 at 6:20:13 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #36, saying: There's no point, he's just trolling and being a condescending ass at this point. Go on, Narrator, continue to believe that human intelligence is unique in the universe. Replies: 39
Msg #39: On 8/13/2015 at 12:41:41 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #38, saying: I don't think that.
Msg #40: On 8/15/2015 at 2:08:19 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: You'd have to be extremely naive not to realize the robot revolution is coming. We are all going to be jobless.
I huge number of people already support mincome, TW. I would say as the unemployment rate goes through the roof and more and more articles and news reports come out about how all of our jobs are going to disappear, support for a mincome will rise across the board. This isn't something that will only affect one side of the political spectrum.
Msg #41: On 8/15/2015 at 2:37:39 AM, Narrator replied, saying: My point is this: AI replacing doctors has salient benefits and hidden flaws, doctors have salient flaws and hidden benefits.
It may be the case that AI's will begin replacing doctors at least for a short while, but it's not a good idea, and will backfire. Hopefully people have the wisdom not to do this.
