Is roboticisation of jobs ethical ?

[Ted Striker]

Case in point is Carly Fiorina, who just got FIRED from HP, and got a SEVERENCE package that is estimated at $42 million dollars!

For getting FIRED!!!!!!!

I wonder how many Compaq and HP workers were laid off during her tenure, or who got really good raises?

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/12/news/newsmakers/fiorina_severance/

I'm sure that was just a special case though.

[Seeker]

"we can not build AI the way you envision it."

This isn't an AI thread but it caught my eye.

Looks like a BAM to me if it is refering to some sort of absolute limit on technology rather than just what we know today.

The Human Brain, our consciousness machine, is special only in its great complexity. There are no 'metaphysical' parts to the brain that I am aware of.

It should be theoretically possible to duplicate the human brain artificially, it's just that we are far behind in the requisite knowledge. For example only now are the first tentative steps being taken to create artificial cells of any kind, let alone neurons let alone configured as an organ.

[Az]

Same as above, there is no "entity" independent of the brain, there is nothing you can do to transfer it because you cannot take "it" out of the brain.

How so?

I assume that the brain's structure, with suffucient means and technology can be read, and written.

I also assume that the brain matter's capability to behave in the way it behaves now is not indestructible.

So this is what we do: Read part - Mirror part in technological equivaent - reroute connections from other parts to technological equivalent - shut down original part.

This is very raw, but saying "this is impossible" is merely a BAM.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Seeker
"we can not build AI the way you envision it."

This isn't an AI thread but it caught my eye.

Looks like a BAM to me if it is refering to some sort of absolute limit on technology rather than just what we know today.

The Human Brain, our consciousness machine, is special only in its great complexity. There are no 'metaphysical' parts to the brain that I am aware of.

It should be theoretically possible to duplicate the human brain artificially, it's just that we are far behind in the requisite knowledge. For example only now are the first tentative steps being taken to create artificial cells of any kind, let alone neurons let alone configured as an organ.

we got an alu, and thats that. an alu can't think. We do not have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the brain,and until we get that there isn't a whole lot we can do.

[Kidlicious]

Good thread aneeshm.

To the point, it is now unethical to not compensate people for their work, but if people don't need to work in the future we need new ethics. People will need to be compensated just because of their needs and rights to equality. Likewise, compensation for ownership of property will not be justified because it is now justified on the grounds of work performed. In the future the ethical necessities of capitalism will no longer be necessary.

[Seeker]

Historical Question:

What does the 'M' in BAM stand for?

[Whoha]

no idea, want me to google it?

[Q Classic]

OP: an unequivocal yes. it is ethical.

Kidicious: no. you should not get compensated for just sitting around and being a worthless layabout. if your job is replaced, you must adapt and develop new skills.

Seeker: iirc, it was in re some kind of fezzing, and means specifically, "Baldfaced Assertion Man".

Azazel or somebody from Israel, I can't recall: AI Why not develop it? Because things like Battlestar Galactica, The Matrix, whatever that upcoming movie about an intelligent plane is called and what not are almost evangelical in their hatred of anything that is an inhuman intelligence?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Kidicious: no. you should not get compensated for just sitting around and being a worthless layabout. if your job is replaced, you must adapt and develop new skills.

"Compensated" is going to be an outdated term in the future. There will be an over abundance of highly skilled professionals in each field just as there is an over abundance of low skilled workers today. There will be no reason to "compensate" people for developing new skills.

[Q Classic]

the overabundance of highly skilled professionals means that they will have to adapt to make themselves more marketable. some of these adaptations will come in the form of developing new skills.

sucks, but it's gotta happen.

there will be no reason to "compensate" people for doing nothing.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

or you will have them driving buses and demanding exorbitant wages.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Seeker
Historical Question:

What does the 'M' in BAM stand for?

Man.

BAM = Bald Assertion Man, something like Superman or Batman, I suppose.

Boshko made 3 strips about it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the overabundance of highly skilled professionals means that they will have to adapt to make themselves more marketable. some of these adaptations will come in the form of developing new skills.

I don't think you are considering what overabundance means and what the consequences will be. There comes a point where developing new skills is not cost effective and people will do it for personal satisfaction only.

sucks, but it's gotta happen.

there will be no reason to "compensate" people for doing nothing.

Sure there will. People need to survive. If they can't work they still need to survive.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
the overabundance of highly skilled professionals means that they will have to adapt to make themselves more marketable. some of these adaptations will come in the form of developing new skills.

I am not sure if you aware of the magnitude of such an endeavour when you make such a blanket statement. Most of these skills take several years of formal education, and several years more of training. So what would you eat in the mean time? Poo?

Quite frankly, not everybody has the ability to acquire these new skills.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
there will be no reason to "compensate" people for doing nothing.

The society has an ethical duty to look after its unfortunate citizens.

[Q Classic]

I don't think you are considering what overabundance means and what the consequences will be. There comes a point where developing new skills is not cost effective and people will do it for personal satisfaction only.

That point isn't now, and honestly, I can't forsee a utopia like that.

Sure there will. People need to survive. If they can't work they still need to survive.

Frankly, no they don't.

Quite frankly, not everybody has the ability to acquire these new skills.

See above.

I am not sure if you aware of the magnitude of such an endeavour when you make such a blanket statement. Most of these skills take several years of formal education, and several years more of training. So what would you eat in the mean time? Poo?

Spoo, actually.

The society has an ethical duty to look after its unfortunate citizens.

It does. That does not, however, mean that society can necessarily afford to look after all its unfortunate citizens.

You do realize that in any such society, it'll again be the middle class who gets shafted and will have to look after its unfortunate citizens. It'll be the forgotten middle class that everyone takes for granted that'll have the tax burden, that'll see its earnings go up in taxes because they've made it, just not enough to qualify for all the juicy loopholes, right?

Bring down the middle to keep the rich breathing comfortably.