There is no reason to believe that the things described here as uniquely human will not also be done by machines very soon. Or 'faked' in such a good way that no human can tell the difference, which ultimately is the same as being real, for all practical purposes.
3
"...machines will NEVER have: 'a heart.'"
Really - someone can say that with absolute certainty? Man will NEVER fly. Never reach the moon. Never transplant a heart or a face or come up with the means to mentally control a prosthetic limb.
Come on. Give up. The innate fear we have is that technology will overrun us someday, and so we say things like : machines will never love, never be artistic, never have heart. But the truth is there is no lock on artistry or compassion that we humans have.
We think that because we have created the machinery, that because we have written the programs that control the machines - that we have not somehow instilled the same "heart" in it that exists within our own creative explosion.
For as long as we feel threatened by our own creation, we can cower under the idea that man or machines will NEVER do X, or Y, or Z.
This is not truth. It is the belief of those still governed by fears both unspoken and evident.
Really - someone can say that with absolute certainty? Man will NEVER fly. Never reach the moon. Never transplant a heart or a face or come up with the means to mentally control a prosthetic limb.
Come on. Give up. The innate fear we have is that technology will overrun us someday, and so we say things like : machines will never love, never be artistic, never have heart. But the truth is there is no lock on artistry or compassion that we humans have.
We think that because we have created the machinery, that because we have written the programs that control the machines - that we have not somehow instilled the same "heart" in it that exists within our own creative explosion.
For as long as we feel threatened by our own creation, we can cower under the idea that man or machines will NEVER do X, or Y, or Z.
This is not truth. It is the belief of those still governed by fears both unspoken and evident.
4
What I fear is that when machines think, humans don't believe (or just don't) think anymore. I see kids that have no ability to deduce from basic facts, they don't have to work hard to learn or find facts. Most cannot do math in their heads, and sadly, don't think it's necessary. It is!
Perhaps the poorest nations will actually better themselves over those better off as they still go to school and read, write, and learn math. Using paper and pencils and logic. Or, perhaps things will come around and our public education system will stop wasting money on technology and get back to basics - a classroom with a teacher who actually talks to you and writes on a board. Who sees confusion in your eyes and re-states the point with new examples to pull you in. Most kids (and adults) actually need to touch and hear to learn; passive learning is about memorization only.
And, I don't want books, poems, or music written by 'smart' computers. I want to hear from humans, and their never ending experiences (not talking about experience with a video game or smart phone app). We need social contact and a conscience as to the outcome of our actions and thoughts, otherwise, we become numb to the most violent of actions. Unless, of course, it affects 'us.'
Perhaps the poorest nations will actually better themselves over those better off as they still go to school and read, write, and learn math. Using paper and pencils and logic. Or, perhaps things will come around and our public education system will stop wasting money on technology and get back to basics - a classroom with a teacher who actually talks to you and writes on a board. Who sees confusion in your eyes and re-states the point with new examples to pull you in. Most kids (and adults) actually need to touch and hear to learn; passive learning is about memorization only.
And, I don't want books, poems, or music written by 'smart' computers. I want to hear from humans, and their never ending experiences (not talking about experience with a video game or smart phone app). We need social contact and a conscience as to the outcome of our actions and thoughts, otherwise, we become numb to the most violent of actions. Unless, of course, it affects 'us.'
7
The vitriol of Mr. Trump's supporters has stripped me of what little faith I had in humanity. They've already shown their compassion by whacking me in the head with a Republican oar as I attempt to cling to the Affordable Care Act lifeboat. I'll try to drown as quickly as possible in order not to inconvenience them.
11
Let's not forget that Galileo was excommunicated and arrested by the Pope under the Roman Catholic Inquisition for discovering that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. We are seeing the same kind of anti science hysteria now in regards to climate change because some people don't like what the science is telling us . That is a very dangerous sign. Our nation was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, rationality and reason, and to attack those principles is to attack the very foundation of our country.
14
As usual, economists are decades behind sociologists -- Arlie Hochschild invented the term "emotion work" in 1979 to describe the value placed on human interaction in commercial settings. Valuable yes, but also subject to the same exploitation as physical labor (e.g. employees can be monitored for projecting the right emotional attitude, and fired/penalized if they do not). What matters is not only what jobs are saved for the "human economy," but whether those jobs are humane, well-paid, and respected. Ask nurses and teachers now if they feel like valued employees.
5
Guess, you missed Star Trek: The Next Generation and Mr. Data. Compassionate, humane and never needs a bathroom break.
As I watch our corporations toss aside workers for a penny to the bottom line what makes you, Tom, sure we humans will do the right thing?
As I watch our corporations toss aside workers for a penny to the bottom line what makes you, Tom, sure we humans will do the right thing?
9
I'm not sure that machines will never have a heart, in the metaphorical sense Friedman is using the term. Alan Turin famously proposed a test to determine whether or not a machine could think -- could an observer determine the difference between what a machine was doing and what a human was doing. The same thing could be said of the emotional life of a machine. If billions of neurons can be hooked up in such a way as to produce a feeling animal, I see no reason why millions of circuits could be hooked up in a way which produces a similar result.
5
There are two questions that should be asked:
Why was this "profound disruption in the workplace and the economy at large" not regarded and fought with the same level of aggressiveness and coverage by the press as Climate Change?
What is going to happen when people, by the thousands, start getting laid off?
A grim future for Humanity.
Why was this "profound disruption in the workplace and the economy at large" not regarded and fought with the same level of aggressiveness and coverage by the press as Climate Change?
What is going to happen when people, by the thousands, start getting laid off?
A grim future for Humanity.
6
Forgive me if "The artist-teachers who work five nights a week can make $50,000 a year connecting people to their hearts" smacks of "Let them eat cake."
6
I'm sorry I don't get it. Is this a ghost writer subbing for Mr. Friedman? There's no mention of Trump, not the slightest hint of a snark. That's not the column we've known for over a year. If indeed it is him, does this mean that from now on we have to actually read Mr. Friedman's column in entirety, mull over it, and make thoughtful comments? As in renew subscriptions? ... Alright, will do, happy new year to you too.
4
This column is reminiscent of "the World is Flat". Mr. Friedman thought it was wonderful how tens of thousands of Indians were working at call centers serving the American public. Was something worth encouraging, the Indians got jobs, they became consumers. What about the American worker whose job went to India? Well, that didn't matter much, they would do something better. Sure.
"The artist-teachers who work five nights a week can make $50,000 a year connecting people to their hearts."
Sure. Even if we accept the fact that this fad is enduring, how does one pay $3500+ rent (that's what one bedrooms go for in my building) on a $50k salary?
We are heading into a tsunami and the 'elite' is busy stashing their loot in offshore accounts to worry about the consequences. All I know is that if the so-called leaders and elite don't get their act together, the revolt of the peasants is just around the corner.
"The artist-teachers who work five nights a week can make $50,000 a year connecting people to their hearts."
Sure. Even if we accept the fact that this fad is enduring, how does one pay $3500+ rent (that's what one bedrooms go for in my building) on a $50k salary?
We are heading into a tsunami and the 'elite' is busy stashing their loot in offshore accounts to worry about the consequences. All I know is that if the so-called leaders and elite don't get their act together, the revolt of the peasants is just around the corner.
12
Many people can become and Expert at something. However to become a Master, you MUST engage your heart.
2
"But only humans can do the next right thing." Or wrong thing, as was witnessed by Congress's closed-door attempt to circumvent ethics safeguards with something only a fool would believe is "better."
5
Thomas Friedman seems to think that silly classes combining drinking and painting offered by a for-profit company are the coolest new indication of the glorious new age. Sounds more like a singles bar with pretensions. Sounds like a lot of people and companies (are some of the painter-drinkers sent as a perk?) have more money than sense.
Meanwhile the benefits of a doubling of productivity caused by all the new tech that Friedman loves has been sent entirely right to the top earners, with the highest earners getting the most. And meanwhile the lower paid employees have gotten nothing over the past decades starting with the Reagan administration. This is the real result of quickly increasing tech related productivity gains combined with Republican laissez-faie and libertarian governing, now about to go on steroids. Dumping anything that actually helps most people, like Social Security, the ACA, and Medicare, not to mention worker safety and pollution reduction, is their immediate goal.
But if those with money and time to burn can pay for drinking and painting class I guess it's all cool.
Meanwhile the benefits of a doubling of productivity caused by all the new tech that Friedman loves has been sent entirely right to the top earners, with the highest earners getting the most. And meanwhile the lower paid employees have gotten nothing over the past decades starting with the Reagan administration. This is the real result of quickly increasing tech related productivity gains combined with Republican laissez-faie and libertarian governing, now about to go on steroids. Dumping anything that actually helps most people, like Social Security, the ACA, and Medicare, not to mention worker safety and pollution reduction, is their immediate goal.
But if those with money and time to burn can pay for drinking and painting class I guess it's all cool.
10
>
"Economists may object that in the past technological innovation has not reduced employment permanently –as old occupations have died out, others have been born. But robotic technologies are unparalleled in their scope and reach. If an earlier burst of technological advance left behind a lumpenproletarian underclass, the current wave looks set to create a lumpenbourgeoisie. Denied any prospect of a lifelong career, lacking pensions or savings, the former middle classes can expect a life of precarious insecurity for the foreseeable future. A few may recreate the trappings of Edwardian privilege, but for most a bourgeois life of any kind will soon be as remote as feudalism."....
Humanism can mean many things, but for us it means belief in progress. To believe in progress is to believe that, by using the new powers given us by growing scientific knowledge, humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals. This is the hope of nearly everybody nowadays, but it is groundless. For though human knowledge will very likely continue to grow and with it human power, the human animal will stay the same: a highly inventive species that is also one of the most predatory and destructive."
John N. Gray
Science and knowledge may be cumulative, but morality and ethics are not; they're cyclical at best.
"Economists may object that in the past technological innovation has not reduced employment permanently –as old occupations have died out, others have been born. But robotic technologies are unparalleled in their scope and reach. If an earlier burst of technological advance left behind a lumpenproletarian underclass, the current wave looks set to create a lumpenbourgeoisie. Denied any prospect of a lifelong career, lacking pensions or savings, the former middle classes can expect a life of precarious insecurity for the foreseeable future. A few may recreate the trappings of Edwardian privilege, but for most a bourgeois life of any kind will soon be as remote as feudalism."....
Humanism can mean many things, but for us it means belief in progress. To believe in progress is to believe that, by using the new powers given us by growing scientific knowledge, humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals. This is the hope of nearly everybody nowadays, but it is groundless. For though human knowledge will very likely continue to grow and with it human power, the human animal will stay the same: a highly inventive species that is also one of the most predatory and destructive."
John N. Gray
Science and knowledge may be cumulative, but morality and ethics are not; they're cyclical at best.
10
It seems a bit dissonant for Mr. Friedman to write a column challenging Mr. Trump's apparent disregard for science and facts while himself suggesting that the source of any human decision is located in the heart rather than the brain. When it comes to seeking a basis for distinguishing humans from computers, a more enlightened starting point might be self-awareness.
3
Bravo, he wrote on his smart phone.
1
Whatever the merits of the overall argument,this gets Descartes completely wrong. "I think, therefore I am" was not about thinking being a uniquely human activity. It was about establishing what we can be sure we know, and the first thing we can know for a certainty is that our own minds exist - we may be totally deluded in our perceptions of the external world, all our thoughts may be wrong, but in order to be deluded or wrong our minds must exist. This is the starting point of Descartes' epistemology, it's not about human vs. animal distinctions.
And of course you know why they do not teach philosophy at universities for horses - because one cannot put Descartes before the horse.
And of course you know why they do not teach philosophy at universities for horses - because one cannot put Descartes before the horse.
16
Dear Tom,
You're getting closer.
I heard your talk here on MPR last month. I don't think many will want to follow the path of continuous upgrading of tech skills you outlined. Rather I see a broad turning away from tech to intelligent, connected personal service that touches others and heals ourselves, heart work as your friend Dov describes. That's what I'm doing (and I'm 80 years old )and my clients also want to go in that direction.(I'm an ontological life coach.)
I used to be a physicist but finally realized I didn't really care about the discoveries we were making. Science has its place but it doesn't offer a good philosophy of life or reality. That is found within us and amongst us.
Best wishes.
Bevalyn Crawford
You're getting closer.
I heard your talk here on MPR last month. I don't think many will want to follow the path of continuous upgrading of tech skills you outlined. Rather I see a broad turning away from tech to intelligent, connected personal service that touches others and heals ourselves, heart work as your friend Dov describes. That's what I'm doing (and I'm 80 years old )and my clients also want to go in that direction.(I'm an ontological life coach.)
I used to be a physicist but finally realized I didn't really care about the discoveries we were making. Science has its place but it doesn't offer a good philosophy of life or reality. That is found within us and amongst us.
Best wishes.
Bevalyn Crawford
3
AI and automation can help us achieve human aims but, unfortunately, that is not the objective of corporate use of these advances. From the corporate standpoint AI and automation are simply cheaper ways to make things than hiring humans.
To put AI and automation to work for humans, humans have to be in control. In particular, government has to be wrested from corporate control so suitable applications and regulations can be put in place.
For example, AI could be used to develop better infrastructure, or better education,or better housing development, etc etc but corporations aren't interested in such things unless they fit a bottom-line business model. The corporate view is that product and service is not an end in itself, but only a means to an end, mainly the end of making the already comfortable more comfortable, whatever ancillary misfortunes that may entail.
To put AI and automation to work for humans, humans have to be in control. In particular, government has to be wrested from corporate control so suitable applications and regulations can be put in place.
For example, AI could be used to develop better infrastructure, or better education,or better housing development, etc etc but corporations aren't interested in such things unless they fit a bottom-line business model. The corporate view is that product and service is not an end in itself, but only a means to an end, mainly the end of making the already comfortable more comfortable, whatever ancillary misfortunes that may entail.
5
To be a bit pedantic. Descartes really said "I am thinking therefore I am." Only while in the act of thinking could he be sure he existed.
2
To be even more pedantic, Descartes really said "Cogito ergo sum"
3
OK, Heart. But how do you monetize it? Incomes, even good enough incomes, are more & more precarious, which tends to stifle creativity & caring.
2
Absolutely outstanding - start to finish...
Kudos...
Write a few more like this, and I'll continue to subscribe beyond the 50%-off trial period...
As I had subscribed, for ~25 years - before I was so put off by the NYT's biased pre-election coverage...
I'm dead serious...
It is about the triumph of the human spirit, above all else - including our faulty minds and bodies...
Kudos...
Write a few more like this, and I'll continue to subscribe beyond the 50%-off trial period...
As I had subscribed, for ~25 years - before I was so put off by the NYT's biased pre-election coverage...
I'm dead serious...
It is about the triumph of the human spirit, above all else - including our faulty minds and bodies...
1
I admire Friedman's loving attitude, but I'm not sure he's right about the limitations of computers. Just as people argue about whether current computers are "really" thinking, maybe 10 or 20 years from now we'll hear the same arguments about whether they're "really" feeling. As far back as 1972, psychiatrist Kenneth Colby programmed a computer to simulate a paranoid schizophrenic, not just in overt behavior but following Colby's proposed model of a paranoid's thought processes. Parry's feelings were more about anger than about love, but it did have feelings -- at least in the same sense in which Watson has thoughts.
Also, I think he's misrepresenting Descartes. If he meant "cogito ergo sum" to represent the defining characteristic of human beings, the argument would imply that dogs and rocks and flowers and computers /don't/ exist! Instead, he was trying to come up with a formal axiomatization of philosophy, just as he and others were doing for geometry. And his starting point was that he, René Descartes, was directly aware of his own thinking. He might be mistaken about what he sees and hears -- maybe he's dreaming those things -- but he can't be wrong about the fact that he's thinking. From that starting point, he goes on to prove (if you accept his logic) that everything else exists, too, the rocks and the flowers and even God. If it turned out that dolphins think as well as people do, it wouldn't affect Descartes' reasoning at all.
Also, I think he's misrepresenting Descartes. If he meant "cogito ergo sum" to represent the defining characteristic of human beings, the argument would imply that dogs and rocks and flowers and computers /don't/ exist! Instead, he was trying to come up with a formal axiomatization of philosophy, just as he and others were doing for geometry. And his starting point was that he, René Descartes, was directly aware of his own thinking. He might be mistaken about what he sees and hears -- maybe he's dreaming those things -- but he can't be wrong about the fact that he's thinking. From that starting point, he goes on to prove (if you accept his logic) that everything else exists, too, the rocks and the flowers and even God. If it turned out that dolphins think as well as people do, it wouldn't affect Descartes' reasoning at all.
8
When I think of technology I long for the time where technology frees us from the drudgery of daily "work" to allow us to have fuller lives.
The TV show Star Trek reflected this once as the Captain Picard was explaining to some alien, I presume, that since they have the capability to create, with their technology, physical matter, (example always being the Captain saying to the computer, "tea, earl grey, hot") people did not have to work to grow food or make widgets, they just had the computer do so. Now this is, today at least, science fiction, but think of 3D printing and let you mind roam...
The TV show Star Trek reflected this once as the Captain Picard was explaining to some alien, I presume, that since they have the capability to create, with their technology, physical matter, (example always being the Captain saying to the computer, "tea, earl grey, hot") people did not have to work to grow food or make widgets, they just had the computer do so. Now this is, today at least, science fiction, but think of 3D printing and let you mind roam...
2
Currently reading "Thanks For Being Late" which expands on many of the points that Thomas makes in this short piece. Like every other plus 60 year old in the country I am amazed everyday at the access I have to information and how it shapes my days. The things I try to do consistently to avoid being obsessed or possessed by this endless flow of data are simple and for the most part centered around connecting personally with something living....my dog, my neighbors, my family and the beauty of nature that surrounds us. By doing those things consistently the rapid pace of change in the world is much less intimidating. And he is right....they all involve the heart.
5
Seidman is wrong. There isn't anything unique about humanity, we just happen to have the more complex brain on this planet.
"Heart" and "compassion" are social constructs that have no meaning in nature. Their virtue and nobility is purely a human invention, and should not be consider any more elevated than anger, jealousy, hatred, etc. Ideally we should move towards a future where such emotions are either eliminated, sidelined, or expressed in inconsequential ways.
"Heart" and "compassion" are social constructs that have no meaning in nature. Their virtue and nobility is purely a human invention, and should not be consider any more elevated than anger, jealousy, hatred, etc. Ideally we should move towards a future where such emotions are either eliminated, sidelined, or expressed in inconsequential ways.
2
Remind me not to party with you.
4
Ryan: Are you a robot with an expired warantee?
3
The unique thing about humanity is that humanity is who WE are. The machines have to be made to serve US, not corporate business models.
2
Interesting to see the resistance, but Friedman and Seidman are largely right, although they miss a few things.
It's a good start, if not the total solution. But rarely is there ever a stand-alone home run to huge societal challenges.
To get there, I don't know. But we're going to have to figure out the many obstacles, including to our thinking.
There never was thinking without emotions. That's increasingly being challenged, and that old false duality isn't going to help us.
It's better known the human attention span is a poor match for the compulsions of technology. Short of some compensatory techno shut-off switches, we're going to have to find our internal super willpower.
We have to stop mouthing "community" and actually define and live up to it. Within my sustainability worlds, we're very good at espousing what should be one of our chief value-adds, "community," and not much better than anyone else at responding to emails, getting back to each other when promised, covering each others' backs, or seeing how we can be helpful.
Academics have to stop complaining about institutional barriers to interdisciplinary thinking, and start overcoming them and practicing it.
And, Tom, don't forget the critters and ecosystem part of the equation. I know you know, but we're nothing without them. Many don't know that, and rather than just as an occasional standalone, it should be integrated into the big-picture thinking you often do. Your columns would be a good place to remind us.
It's a good start, if not the total solution. But rarely is there ever a stand-alone home run to huge societal challenges.
To get there, I don't know. But we're going to have to figure out the many obstacles, including to our thinking.
There never was thinking without emotions. That's increasingly being challenged, and that old false duality isn't going to help us.
It's better known the human attention span is a poor match for the compulsions of technology. Short of some compensatory techno shut-off switches, we're going to have to find our internal super willpower.
We have to stop mouthing "community" and actually define and live up to it. Within my sustainability worlds, we're very good at espousing what should be one of our chief value-adds, "community," and not much better than anyone else at responding to emails, getting back to each other when promised, covering each others' backs, or seeing how we can be helpful.
Academics have to stop complaining about institutional barriers to interdisciplinary thinking, and start overcoming them and practicing it.
And, Tom, don't forget the critters and ecosystem part of the equation. I know you know, but we're nothing without them. Many don't know that, and rather than just as an occasional standalone, it should be integrated into the big-picture thinking you often do. Your columns would be a good place to remind us.
2
Short form of Dov Seidman's "wisdom..."
"I have the ability to give a TED talk. Therefore I am."
"I have the ability to give a TED talk. Therefore I am."
3
This is a very relavent article. People need to understand that technology may discover ways to replicate human work functions. Perhaps some people see this as wonderful innovation while others fear it. Work in the past has been changed through innovation to allow fewer workers without a loss and actually an increase in production. These transitions in the past have required training of people to perform jobs required that were created. Just as changes in farming did not create massive unemployment neither will current or future innovations. The innovation technology requires people and people provide two things machines can't a heart as expressed this article and ingenuity. People will adjust with a little help.
I followed the link to Paint Nite. Couldn't believe my eyes. I'm ready to check out.
Gee, Tom, what are all the folks going to the drunken painting classes going to be doing to pay those $50,000 salaries to the drunken painting teachers?
We're heading for a cataclysm and it will be settled as we've settled all the other disputes over resources/survival - by violence.
We're heading for a cataclysm and it will be settled as we've settled all the other disputes over resources/survival - by violence.
2
Winter is over, walk out your door and go inside, leave your gadgets behind.
2
Just haven't gotten around to programming in "heart". Wait a few more decades.
2
I so enjoy your theses, Thomas, because they force deep thought and not the shallowness of trending debate. Technology remains as the ultimate underpinning of future society. The elimination of jobs by technology was something taught in 1970's universities. It continues in disguised form as productivity continues to rise, with the profit and margins of those efforts collected by an upper class of investors, banks, and investor groups. Ownership and control are the words that come to me. Who owns, who controls, and who are the masses of increasing under-employed and USED for profit?
Industrial to knowledge to human economy, eh? When our capitalist economy continues to devalue the productive efforts of the working and middle classes, ownership and control is laughable if "human" is the prophesized future economy. Profit, not human or trust, undergirds this culture that rationalizes the continuing gains of technology, and the future of mankind.
Industrial to knowledge to human economy, eh? When our capitalist economy continues to devalue the productive efforts of the working and middle classes, ownership and control is laughable if "human" is the prophesized future economy. Profit, not human or trust, undergirds this culture that rationalizes the continuing gains of technology, and the future of mankind.
1
The profit culture is a corporate fixation, along with making all paying jobs just fill-ins until the robot replacement is ready. Other kinds of work that aren't readily automated are disdained by corporations and foisted upon the public sector, which corporations incapacitate by refusal to accept taxation or regulation.
There is nothing sacrosanct about this stupid organization. We've just become accustomed to propaganda about the "free" market (that is, a market run by and for corporations). If we can pry corporate fingers off our government, we can put the 'heart' into using AI and automation.
There is nothing sacrosanct about this stupid organization. We've just become accustomed to propaganda about the "free" market (that is, a market run by and for corporations). If we can pry corporate fingers off our government, we can put the 'heart' into using AI and automation.
4
Sounds like a lot of work.
This column is laughable for too many reasons to fully list. Descartes? Humans have known way before Rene's time that they're different from animals. Today's science sections are full of articles telling us animals and plants are far more intelligent than we've given them credit for anyways. Meanwhile look what "homo sapiens" are doing to the planet- destroying the flora and fauna.
Thinking used to be sufficient to land a decent job where the necessities were provided for, with extra cash left over for some rest and relaxation, along with a decent pension. Hope and imagination, not so much.
50,000 dollars in extra cash teaching adults how to paint five nights a week? What's the cost per attendee? When people lose their jobs because everything's being automated, they might scrounge together some spare change to buy cheap booze. Art classes won't be on the menu though.
The robot diagnosing cancer is going to eliminate the doctors altogether, replacing them with cheaper and far less educated workers. In any event, poorer people have always had more empathy than the vultures atop our capitalistic pyramid schemes. It's a lot harder to have "heart" when you're unemployed, hungry, and homeless though.
This column does remind me of a terrific commercial from the Detroit Institute of Arts a few decades ago. They took the song from "Damn Yankees" and changed it to "You Gotta Have Art." And either a bottle or three of some pricy Pinot Noir, or really cheap Russian vodka. Buyer Beware
Thinking used to be sufficient to land a decent job where the necessities were provided for, with extra cash left over for some rest and relaxation, along with a decent pension. Hope and imagination, not so much.
50,000 dollars in extra cash teaching adults how to paint five nights a week? What's the cost per attendee? When people lose their jobs because everything's being automated, they might scrounge together some spare change to buy cheap booze. Art classes won't be on the menu though.
The robot diagnosing cancer is going to eliminate the doctors altogether, replacing them with cheaper and far less educated workers. In any event, poorer people have always had more empathy than the vultures atop our capitalistic pyramid schemes. It's a lot harder to have "heart" when you're unemployed, hungry, and homeless though.
This column does remind me of a terrific commercial from the Detroit Institute of Arts a few decades ago. They took the song from "Damn Yankees" and changed it to "You Gotta Have Art." And either a bottle or three of some pricy Pinot Noir, or really cheap Russian vodka. Buyer Beware
3
Every time we've had a new revolution people are displaced. We saw it with the industrial revolution and we're seeing it with the technological advances today.
People do eventually adapt, especially our young people who grow up using the new technology. Change is painful and scary but it's also inevitable. We need leadership who is willing to invest in us and help us adapt.
People do eventually adapt, especially our young people who grow up using the new technology. Change is painful and scary but it's also inevitable. We need leadership who is willing to invest in us and help us adapt.
1
Machines can easily learn now to provoke and bully us with our deepest obsessions, fears, and desires. I see a future of addictive religious cults led by heartless machines to yoke the majority of us in pursuit of their owners' profit or political power.
"And while machines can reliably interoperate, humans, uniquely, can build deep relationships of trust.” Software does not comprehend "trust". It either works, or it doesn't, so there is no need for such a construct. The concept of trust is purely a function of the HUMAN capacity for deceit. Computers and robots have no such capacity.
1
But "the heart" too has knowledge that the mind knows not, as Pascal, I believe, once said,and that heart knowledge requires as much formation and education as head knowledge. We currently are a society that uses heart knowledge in the most manipulative ways possible to keep people locked in to limited life purposes. Liberals, who like to think that they have the corner on heart-related issues, have shown the pompous artificiality of their political mystique in this post-election season by their denigration of Americans who think differently, and the media as the liberal standard bearer reduces public attention to the Mariah Careys of the world. No future there for humanitarian "heart".
1
Could we have met our match? We have plenty of imaginings about our cleverness leading us to bad ends (Frankenstein, 2001 Space Odyssey, Revelation, not with a bang, but a whimper...).
But now, we see so many existential problems converging: climate, AI, extremisms, racism, unbounded capitalism, impulsiveness at the helm(s)...a true parade-of-horribles forecast.
As my lovely wise Italian grandmother used to say: Whattaya gonna do?
But now, we see so many existential problems converging: climate, AI, extremisms, racism, unbounded capitalism, impulsiveness at the helm(s)...a true parade-of-horribles forecast.
As my lovely wise Italian grandmother used to say: Whattaya gonna do?
1
As per usual Mr Friedman's perverted sense of history gets in the way. History is not linear Islam's golden age of culture and science collapsed in the 13th century just as Western Culture is now collapsing under the weight of its inability to understand that people are far more than economic numbers.
We are more than numbers. It is time to rewatch The Prisoner. Today the village is the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen and yet the village has chosen an arsonist as its leader.
We are more than numbers. It is time to rewatch The Prisoner. Today the village is the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever seen and yet the village has chosen an arsonist as its leader.
1
Mr. Friedman,
Steeped in spiritual meaning, your thoughts reconcile human traits wrongly considered in conflict, namely, reason and emotion. Though animals clearly exhibit patterns of behavior reflecting elements of both, we are endowed with a unique capability. Unlike man-made machines, we can consciously use those tools to improve the lots of any living creature on earth.
Augustinus (354-430) held the view that philosophy alone can´t possibly guide us in our quest for truth. He reached the conclusion that faith is the key to wisdom and happiness. To my mind, this premise is highly relevant to both secular and religious thought.
Unlike man-made machines, we can choose to spend our lives in quest of truth and purpose. Unlike man-made machines, we can consciously use our emotional and intellectual resources to make life worth the while.
Steeped in spiritual meaning, your thoughts reconcile human traits wrongly considered in conflict, namely, reason and emotion. Though animals clearly exhibit patterns of behavior reflecting elements of both, we are endowed with a unique capability. Unlike man-made machines, we can consciously use those tools to improve the lots of any living creature on earth.
Augustinus (354-430) held the view that philosophy alone can´t possibly guide us in our quest for truth. He reached the conclusion that faith is the key to wisdom and happiness. To my mind, this premise is highly relevant to both secular and religious thought.
Unlike man-made machines, we can choose to spend our lives in quest of truth and purpose. Unlike man-made machines, we can consciously use our emotional and intellectual resources to make life worth the while.
1
I like this a lot.
However, when I grew up machines were supposed to create more leisure and family time and a shorter work week. Now machines are replacing useful work at a rapid rate and the income they derive from their functions is going to the owners of the machines not to the workers.
What we have now are struggling two family workers paid low wages delivering goods created by machines to customers. Even this delivery mechanism is under threat from human-free check out lines and robots. The income of these workers declines and they have fewer and fewer opportunities.
However, when I grew up machines were supposed to create more leisure and family time and a shorter work week. Now machines are replacing useful work at a rapid rate and the income they derive from their functions is going to the owners of the machines not to the workers.
What we have now are struggling two family workers paid low wages delivering goods created by machines to customers. Even this delivery mechanism is under threat from human-free check out lines and robots. The income of these workers declines and they have fewer and fewer opportunities.
3
'The answer, said Seidman, is the one thing machines will never have: “a heart.”' Is he sure about this?
Software has come a long way past simple "yes/no" decisions. At the present rapid rate of development, why couldn't sottware have a whole set of algorithms that are grouped under "emotional criteria"?
It doesn't seem long ago that computers would never be able to make medical diagnoses better than qualified humans. Is that true any more?
Software has come a long way past simple "yes/no" decisions. At the present rapid rate of development, why couldn't sottware have a whole set of algorithms that are grouped under "emotional criteria"?
It doesn't seem long ago that computers would never be able to make medical diagnoses better than qualified humans. Is that true any more?
3
There needs to be wider discussion about increasing social value through the provisioning of an increased and better stock of public goods. This higher standard of living could be measured economically and probably should since an allocation of capital and expenditure measured economically would be employed. But the outcome would include large intangibles for better health, housing, education, recreation, and culture.
2
Machines do not "think". Machines process data or "thoughtforms". Thinking is quite a different thing. Thinking does not involve forms. It deals with formless principles of physics. Thinking is a matter of the heart. It uses the energy of Will and Love to move principles into Ideas, a process we call Intuition. When Love interacts with intelligence you have Wisdom. When Wisdom is used to formulate things you have Beauty and Truth.
As Keats indicated, Beauty is Truth , Truth Beauty." If you do not understand this you are "not-thinking". You are data processing.
When intelligence is used to formulate things you have the kind of mess that is now plaguing the Planet. For example, take our economic system. This system destroys the natural equilibrium and harmony of the energy interfaces of the planet and generates suffering disease, war, death. Wisdom would not, could not conceive of a machine gun or poison gas.
Indeed, Evolution at this point is totally concerned with moving from the mind/intellect into the Heart/Wisdom. Get on board or become extinct, just another dinosaur.
As Keats indicated, Beauty is Truth , Truth Beauty." If you do not understand this you are "not-thinking". You are data processing.
When intelligence is used to formulate things you have the kind of mess that is now plaguing the Planet. For example, take our economic system. This system destroys the natural equilibrium and harmony of the energy interfaces of the planet and generates suffering disease, war, death. Wisdom would not, could not conceive of a machine gun or poison gas.
Indeed, Evolution at this point is totally concerned with moving from the mind/intellect into the Heart/Wisdom. Get on board or become extinct, just another dinosaur.
1
Simply put, I have feelings, therefore I am.
1
Thank you Mr. Friedman for addressing a human exigency in the making: the approaching autonomy of thinking machines. This conversation needs much more attention; thank you again.
Buddhist dharma defines consciousness on a scale from gross recognition of physical reality to subtle awareness of inner light. This range of consciousness has been gleaned over centuries of collective meditation on it's nature. The subtle form of consciousness, inner light, manifests most strongly at death and souls are reported to linger in this space for varying lengths of time. Such prolonged subtle consciousness, by witness, preserves the human body even in the absence of cardiorespiratory or other sensory activity, postponing deterioration. Such observations lead to questions about consciousness as a motivating force that subsumes life and form itself.
I found a video in which the Dalai Lama expresses his thinking on the questions you pose, "I welcome the downloading of my consciousness into a computer, or into any other medium."
If "we are consciousness, not life and form," as Sri Aurobindo tells us, then the vehicle or medium that carries our consciousness is of secondary importance and subservient to the higher level of organization.
Technology is a reflection of our human capacity for invention. We make hardware that mimics us, but we are capable of much more. Consciousness understood may allow us to assume whatever eternal form we desire, fully informed.
Buddhist dharma defines consciousness on a scale from gross recognition of physical reality to subtle awareness of inner light. This range of consciousness has been gleaned over centuries of collective meditation on it's nature. The subtle form of consciousness, inner light, manifests most strongly at death and souls are reported to linger in this space for varying lengths of time. Such prolonged subtle consciousness, by witness, preserves the human body even in the absence of cardiorespiratory or other sensory activity, postponing deterioration. Such observations lead to questions about consciousness as a motivating force that subsumes life and form itself.
I found a video in which the Dalai Lama expresses his thinking on the questions you pose, "I welcome the downloading of my consciousness into a computer, or into any other medium."
If "we are consciousness, not life and form," as Sri Aurobindo tells us, then the vehicle or medium that carries our consciousness is of secondary importance and subservient to the higher level of organization.
Technology is a reflection of our human capacity for invention. We make hardware that mimics us, but we are capable of much more. Consciousness understood may allow us to assume whatever eternal form we desire, fully informed.
4
When "my consciousness" gets "downloaded" into a computer, is this like when you make a copy of your hard drive? The old one is still there? So now I am looking at the computer, and I am thinking, *it* is conscious. And it will continue to exist after my body is gone. But why should I care very much? It is perhaps (at some level) a replica of me, but it's not me. A computer might be a vehicle or medium that allows processes like my patterns of thought to continue on, but it is not carrying *my* consciousness anywhere: that remained with me after the downloading. Not clear how this allows *us* to "assume whatever eternal form we desire."
The challenge of the coming era of AI and automation is indeed to put 'heart' into it, and that means wresting government from corporate hands and putting citizens back in charge. Corporations see AI and automation as cost saving by eliminating expensive humans. The cost savings primarily transfer to the corporate elite, and displaced workers are left without income or recourse, and with a Congress dismantling the safety net and regulations restraining corporate abuses .
The most effective way to put 'heart' into AI and automation is to get the hands of heartless bottom-line corporate money makers off our government, and throw their lackeys out of office.
The most effective way to put 'heart' into AI and automation is to get the hands of heartless bottom-line corporate money makers off our government, and throw their lackeys out of office.
4
In the past 40 years, close to 60% of vertebrates have gone extinct. The "Disruption" you speak of is nothing more than corporate speak to create an illusion that what is detrimental is good. The corporation does not have a "heart" or a "soul" and creates nothing, it only steals.
4
I find Mr. Friedman's thesis, ironically, both credible & ridiculous. To envisage an earthly existence where we no longer need to use the muscles of our arms, our legs & backs to do work is to imagine a Hieronymus Bosch like dystopia. We will be alive but also very sick. Without physical work we will be like wild dogs prowling the streets of our robotized landscapes sniffing the foul air for the bloat of a rare road killed deer. We were born to work; we evolved to do hard physical work. So any vision of future society, an earthly paradise, must include both work & heart. A house with an organic vegetable garden has more heart, with the gardener bent sweating over his hoe, than a full room of automations.
2
Tom tells us that software is writing all kinds of good stuff. No. No. No. Mx. Software isn't writing anything. A bunch, probably thousands, of nerds have cobbled together machine instructions one bit at a time to trip enough binary switches to string words together that mimic somebody's idea of poetry. The output from the machine is just the old GIGO with an iambic pentameter rhyme here and there.
Not one of these machines can produce themselves. Not one of them. They are all the extension of the imagination of a gaggle of human synapses. IBM Watson is just a pile of atoms and molecules that were arranged by thousands of humans at a great cost to perform a lot of simple tasks at very great speed relative to humans. Take the human element out of the equation and machines vanish instantly.
If you think these fancy machines are so hot, just take away their power sources and see how fast they become trash littering the highway of civilization.
Not one of these machines can produce themselves. Not one of them. They are all the extension of the imagination of a gaggle of human synapses. IBM Watson is just a pile of atoms and molecules that were arranged by thousands of humans at a great cost to perform a lot of simple tasks at very great speed relative to humans. Take the human element out of the equation and machines vanish instantly.
If you think these fancy machines are so hot, just take away their power sources and see how fast they become trash littering the highway of civilization.
2
If humans' only remaining function becomes consumption of machine output then they will need income.
Humans, all of them, will have to be given a stake in all these machine-run entities and paid dividends for essentially living a life of leisure.
Oh the irony!
Humans, all of them, will have to be given a stake in all these machine-run entities and paid dividends for essentially living a life of leisure.
Oh the irony!
3
This was my thought as well. If you have ever seen Zeitgeist, this is the creator's take on how our world will have to function. Corporations at present who are automating functions are, to use a cliche, biting the hand that feeds them. It does no good to be able to make goods at low cost if no one has a job and money to buy them. It's a system that is bound to fail unless there is a means for consumers to keep spending to keep the money rolling in. The whole system would collapse without consumers to keep it going, and the only two solutions as I see them are to either keep the consumers employed OR pay them not to work. Either way, they keep buying your stuff.
I have said elsewhere that I'm a court reporter, and technology is rapidly taking my job away. Why, at 21, did I enter this line of work? At 24, I've now been doing this work for three years. People constantly remind me that technology will replace my job, to which I say, well, it's in demand now, and I am building good financial savings off it so when the time comes that my job automates, I will find something to retrain in. It's inevitable, but I'm not afraid of it. I just remind myself to live in the moment. I fear more for those who are uneducated and depend on manual labour jobs. I'm blessed to have options. Overall, I welcome what the future brings.
I have said elsewhere that I'm a court reporter, and technology is rapidly taking my job away. Why, at 21, did I enter this line of work? At 24, I've now been doing this work for three years. People constantly remind me that technology will replace my job, to which I say, well, it's in demand now, and I am building good financial savings off it so when the time comes that my job automates, I will find something to retrain in. It's inevitable, but I'm not afraid of it. I just remind myself to live in the moment. I fear more for those who are uneducated and depend on manual labour jobs. I'm blessed to have options. Overall, I welcome what the future brings.
1
Create more value with hearts and between hearts?? If anything Trump's election proves we are moving in the opposite direction. Never mind that natural stupidity will always beat artificial intelligence.
1
The humans will still be the creators and programmers of the machines. I'm not at all sure that 'heart' will be what distinguishes us. We seem to lose that all too readily.
Machines are a long way from matching human's sense of aesthetics and beauty. Not as good at reacting to the unexpected. A factory-floor robot able to improvise would be very costly to create.
The task for society is to fight the income inequality which both automation and globalization have spawned. Is not as much human labor required as in years past? We've confronted that challenge before and responded with the 40-hour work week and abolition of child labor. The new economy demands increasingly skilled workers. We've met that in the past by providing more years of education/training to the young and re-training for older workers. More years of education also shrinks the size of the workforce.
Less need for grueling physical labor under harsh conditions, less need to drive workers to devote more than 40-hours per week at the expense of family life, the higher standard of living which comes from increased productivity -- these are all good. People will be happier with a 30-hour work week. The increased demand for leisure activities and creative/cultural enrichment will provide jobs and enrich lives.
Nobody today mourns the loss of the sweat shops which provided jobs in past years. Thirty years from today, hardly anyone will mourn the loss of the 40-hour week.
Galileo did not change ethics.
Machines are a long way from matching human's sense of aesthetics and beauty. Not as good at reacting to the unexpected. A factory-floor robot able to improvise would be very costly to create.
The task for society is to fight the income inequality which both automation and globalization have spawned. Is not as much human labor required as in years past? We've confronted that challenge before and responded with the 40-hour work week and abolition of child labor. The new economy demands increasingly skilled workers. We've met that in the past by providing more years of education/training to the young and re-training for older workers. More years of education also shrinks the size of the workforce.
Less need for grueling physical labor under harsh conditions, less need to drive workers to devote more than 40-hours per week at the expense of family life, the higher standard of living which comes from increased productivity -- these are all good. People will be happier with a 30-hour work week. The increased demand for leisure activities and creative/cultural enrichment will provide jobs and enrich lives.
Nobody today mourns the loss of the sweat shops which provided jobs in past years. Thirty years from today, hardly anyone will mourn the loss of the 40-hour week.
Galileo did not change ethics.
It's very nice that in the age of intelligent machines, humans will "continue to create social and economic value" with their hearts. But except for jobs in the health care field and perhaps a few jobs in the legal system, what jobs will there be for people who "have a heart"? Your essay does not address the fundamental problem that as technology continues to advance, it will no longer be true, as it has been for centuries, that people must work in order for society to function. Unless we come up with a solution for that problem, the benefits of eliminating society's need for the "hands and heads" of humans will not be worth the cost.
1
How come we can automate package delivery and entertainment but can't automate "woman's" work of separating, loading clothes or dishes into a washer or putting dishes away on a shelf, shopping for 45 items with 2-50 choices for each item (cold/flu medications for family members with various drug interactions). Women's work has been underpaid and undervalued for centuries because, in truth, it is never exactly the same and requires judgment at each step along the way. Would a self-driving Uber vehicle carry on an interesting conversation and tell you about the local news or restaurants?
I am making conscious decision to buy at brick and mortar stores, talk kindly on the phone to customer service reps (even after going through endless menus option) and taking a few minutes to engage them (screw the time limits they have, lets keep a few more customer reps employed). I avoid self-check out line, buy local, farmers markets. I try to find someone to repair appliances even if it costs as much as a new one. The solutions to keeping people employed is for each person to find ways to keep each other employed, find unique ways to be of service to others. What happened to our US can-do spirit where most people were self-employed? We now are all waiting for someone to give us a faceless "job" rather than searching for a way to be of service to those we encounter on a regular basis. We have the solutions within us but it takes a change of heart and mind.
I am making conscious decision to buy at brick and mortar stores, talk kindly on the phone to customer service reps (even after going through endless menus option) and taking a few minutes to engage them (screw the time limits they have, lets keep a few more customer reps employed). I avoid self-check out line, buy local, farmers markets. I try to find someone to repair appliances even if it costs as much as a new one. The solutions to keeping people employed is for each person to find ways to keep each other employed, find unique ways to be of service to others. What happened to our US can-do spirit where most people were self-employed? We now are all waiting for someone to give us a faceless "job" rather than searching for a way to be of service to those we encounter on a regular basis. We have the solutions within us but it takes a change of heart and mind.
2
.... No question we are on a path to industrial scale economic displacement .. which will have a whole series of consequences that western governments are ill prepared for .... good points all and the revsional use of Descarts axiom is apt. But I am skeptical of the idea that our unique heart/mind intersect will somehow matter in practical terms, when machines outperform humans in most things at scale... In addition to having unique ability for abstraction, philosophy of mind, and ability to love, humans have a need for purpose. Marshall McLuhan's corollary to "Medium is Message" was (paraphs) "man invents machines, then the machines re-invent man"... The current vestiges of this are evident with enslavement to mobile and digital devices now - as witnessed on any commuter ride anywhere. I am worried that in addition to inexorable march to mass levels of unemployment, the age of machines will rob us of purpose ... Humans will become atomatons of sorts, while growing primacy of machines will be heartless and amoral.
6
Progress cannot be denied or stopped. However, unless we have a public education system that produces thinkers, innovators and creative minds, we will continue to have a two tier society. At a recent 60 year high school reunion from a wonderful school, almost everyone fulfilled their dream of being a professional, a teacher, a medical provider, a farmer, a master stone mason and a housewife. We shared email addresses, Facebook forums and have embraced technology, because we were taught years ago to be innovators and to embrace progress.
One should not conflate corporate control of AI and automation with 'progress'. To put technology to good purpose, it has to be controlled by citizens, not pirates.
4
As a 74 year old toiler in online tech, I applaud both Friedman and Seidman. One of our most promising and frightening fairly recent achievements, the Internet, must be infused with what both call "heart". In 2016, the Internet contributed in many ways to what may be the beginning of the end of the human race. I am doing everything I can to resist the heartlessness that has overtaken much of our planet and am proud to fight along side Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, NY Times columnists and others who understand how far down the road greed has taken us toward a real. non-religious end of times.
3
Watching my parents become physically dependent on caregivers as they reached advanced age, I have often wondered where all of the caring, thoughtful, respectful and kind caregivers will come from who will be needed as we Baby-Boomers reach a point of needing such extensive daily care. It is not easy work, it is not highly paid work, and it is not always recognized for how crucial it is. And it cannot be done by a computer or other form of technology.
There is an old saying: be kind to your children--they will be choosing your nursing home. Today we might say that our generation must look out for the next ones because they will be the ones taking care of us.
There is an old saying: be kind to your children--they will be choosing your nursing home. Today we might say that our generation must look out for the next ones because they will be the ones taking care of us.
5
as much as I appreciate this column and its thrust, Dov Seidman doesn't understand Descartes. The Cogito, which was really a Dubito (I doubt) was the product of a philosophical method -- Descartes was intentionally doubting everything he seemed to know trying to determine if there was anything he could be certain of. The one thing he couldn't doubt was that he was doubting. This was an epistemological process, from which he recontructed what we truly can know about the world.
6
Anxiety is the problem with technological advancement today. When I was a kid ('66) I worked on a pipeline on the "Brush Gang", cutting a 100' swath of Upstate NY forest for the line. We had 5 Saw men and 5 laborers with each saw. Today machines do 90% of that work. Trump won because of the anxiety of poorly educated people who have or will loose their jobs and those educated people who see their more advanced higher paying jobs being jeopardized by the roll of Technology. We are not helping ourselves saying we will bring back coal miners jobs. Unfortunately, we simply do not seriously discuss the future. we look backward, trying to put coal miners back in caves. Political necessity will drive this narrative in order for Trump and the GOP to stay in power. Keep them scared. Keep them off balance. Keep your seat in Congress.
2
The relationship with God above is what truly distinguishes the human being. A machine can do, can perform, can think but has no spiritual capability-that will always belong just to the human being whom God created in His image. The builders of the Tower of Babel were creative and talented people but their building was destined to destruction because they were Godless. We dare not repeat their error.
2
Our society is reliant on consumers always buying new things. When large portions have no work and no money to spend on new things the model fails. We used to have Henry Ford's model of workers making cars that they then would be able to buy. No more. Now workers have few options for good jobs that pay well enough to be a good consumer. It's Walmart and welfare for many.
1
Cogito, ergo sum? Of course. But Descartes's exploration was of the essence of being and what proves our exitence to us. He wasn't, at that point, distinguishing us from other animals, he was distinguishing us from nothingness.
1
Biggest difference between artificial intelligence and humans is judgement. The mantra:“I care, therefore I am; I hope, therefore I am; I imagine, therefore I am. I am ethical, therefore I am. I have a purpose, therefore I am. I pause and reflect, therefore I am” is wonderful if only true. Unlike Descartes simple universal truth, "I think therefore I am" the mantra above is perhaps a goal, not yet a universal truth. "I am ethical" is one of the main centerpieces of good judgement. We have not yet evolved to be an ethical species, although we have the capacity to be ethical.
More than ever it is important to foster empathy, teach critical thinking and include classes in judgement and decision-making in every discipline in our schools. Math can be abused. Even learning a foreign language can have a downside if you try to use it without knowledge of the "foreign" culture. Misuse of science and technology is obvious. I see the saviors of our future in the disciplines of sociology, ethics and mental health. We need people to teach us how to manage our technological revolution. Hopefully it is not too late.
I appreciate Mr. Friedman's column as I do his body of work. But we do not face a philosophical issue, but a practical one. How do we teach caring? How do we really include ethical considerations in a more universal way? We are certainly not at the point where our decision-making efforts are satisfactory to manage the technology we have created.
More than ever it is important to foster empathy, teach critical thinking and include classes in judgement and decision-making in every discipline in our schools. Math can be abused. Even learning a foreign language can have a downside if you try to use it without knowledge of the "foreign" culture. Misuse of science and technology is obvious. I see the saviors of our future in the disciplines of sociology, ethics and mental health. We need people to teach us how to manage our technological revolution. Hopefully it is not too late.
I appreciate Mr. Friedman's column as I do his body of work. But we do not face a philosophical issue, but a practical one. How do we teach caring? How do we really include ethical considerations in a more universal way? We are certainly not at the point where our decision-making efforts are satisfactory to manage the technology we have created.
10
What are the humans to do once the majority of manual labor is outsourced to robots? This basic question apparently was not asked by those industrialists who only saw the need for fewer pesky humans on the assembly lines. Because the creation of jobs is currently an essential part of maintaining social stability, most robotic work needs to be immediately discontinued and the jobs returned to humans at a living wage. Use robots to explore the oceans and space and any other jobs that are extremely dangerous. Until that time comes where unemployed humans are considered an asset rather than a liability, robots need to be shelved.
4
What is the matter Dave ? Even HAL 9000 asked if it would dream.
Technology today concerns itself primarily to ease and speed. ( not anywhere near introspection )
If a supercomputer is programmed to learn or think or even feel, then it is still programmed. We are designing our own future as we continue to destroy it.
How long will the heart continue to pump ?
Technology today concerns itself primarily to ease and speed. ( not anywhere near introspection )
If a supercomputer is programmed to learn or think or even feel, then it is still programmed. We are designing our own future as we continue to destroy it.
How long will the heart continue to pump ?
1
In my opinion of the words "What I Mean".
Sometimes in order to complete a sentence or thought we need to follow-up with the words "what I mean" to make clear that comment is understood.
"From Hands to Heads to Hearts" by Thomas L Friedman I have for you. One important question I have. Can a computer think like a person? If so then a computer can't be immune to feelings. I think if a computer can have a "Food for Thought" it will most likely be at the moment when our civilization becomes one and in itself, God. If that is the case then it is the battle of the networks. That of computers and that of outsourcing.
Sometimes in order to complete a sentence or thought we need to follow-up with the words "what I mean" to make clear that comment is understood.
"From Hands to Heads to Hearts" by Thomas L Friedman I have for you. One important question I have. Can a computer think like a person? If so then a computer can't be immune to feelings. I think if a computer can have a "Food for Thought" it will most likely be at the moment when our civilization becomes one and in itself, God. If that is the case then it is the battle of the networks. That of computers and that of outsourcing.
1
it is a big mistake to think that no one will be able to program caring, honor, support, avarice and greed into an intelligent self-learning neural network.
The real question is whether once done, it can be contained within a value system that minimizes potential "damage" to the world at large. Of course, if that can be done it also means you can maximize potential "damage to the world at large.
The real question is whether once done, it can be contained within a value system that minimizes potential "damage" to the world at large. Of course, if that can be done it also means you can maximize potential "damage to the world at large.
2
It's a shame that we can't figure out how to automate meth addiction. On how to recycle the law enforcement that clearly won't be needed in the coming abundance.
Hand to heart? More like face to palm.
Hand to heart? More like face to palm.
2
So called "knowledge workers" such as analysts, engineers and managers will likely be able to adjust more readily than most to technological changes. They won't all get away unscathed, but will largely change and adapt. The real impact of AI will again hit those hardest who do learnable, repeatable tasks. The next wave of blue collar job destruction is likely to be brutal and lightning fast. Some estimate fully replicating the precision and dexterity of the human hand in around five years away. This AI fueled leap alone could eventually eliminate even more jobs than self driving cars and trucks. The best solution for society? Use the freed up capacity of half the labor force to do more things rather than less. With our new blend of robots and workers, we should be able to keep every building, road and utility in near new condition. No one who is sick should ever go without a needed caretaker. Can these solutions be implemented under the leadership of a political party that believes government should barely exist? A party that believes we should never regulate labor markets, economic policies or healthcare? The inevitable rise of hyper-automation is in direct conflict with all those who believe in completely unrestricted and unregulated capitalism. The Republican Party had better start thinking fast about the looming future, or be swallowed up whole by it.
3
What distinguishes humans from smart machines are the mysterious forces that drive life, that give humans desires, aspirations, imaginations, the so-called "heart". One day, it may be possible to design smart machines with the spark of life, giving rise to a new species, but before then, how would a person with average ability and a "heart" generate value for others, when machines can do better in most things? When smart machines may even possess the semblance of empathy and serve as human companions one day, it's hard to imagine right now what values can the average person with mostly just "heart" generate. The resulting excess labour could cause severe social upheavals, and handouts will only exacerbate their sense of worthlessness. It's likely that smart machines will exert evolutionary pressure on the human species. This challenge could potentially be met with equally rapid advances in the understanding of human genetics and genetic engineering. However, understanding what gives life its vitality is as difficult as giving life to smart machines, and tampering with the human genome is fraught with grave danger. But how else would human evolution keep up with the pace of technological advances and the power it brings?
This column shows the dangers of spending too much time reading business books and thinking that business people know about things beyond business just because they have successfully made money. Mr. Friedman and his friend seem to have completely misunderstood Descartes as well as having failed to seriously consider the depths of the scientific revolution of which they speak.
3
Since the early 19th Century Luddites, periodic predictions have anticipated the permanent displacement of vast multitudes from the workforce. This has never happened because the political economy has found such means of absorbing excess workers as the creation of new job sectors by the new technologies; extending geographical markets; inflating credential requirements; expanding government employment; and so forth.
All such options have reached, or over the next 30-40 years will reach, their limits. How the value created by technology is shared will determine the shape of our institutions and our humanity. The broad choices range between creating a society in which all citizens work less in the traditional sense and more in the sense described in this column, versus creating an authoritarian police state to manage the inevitable unrest that comes from huge portions of the population being idle and needy.
Given the past four decades of increasing appropriation of productivity gains by the wealthiest in our society, the trend is in the latter direction.
All such options have reached, or over the next 30-40 years will reach, their limits. How the value created by technology is shared will determine the shape of our institutions and our humanity. The broad choices range between creating a society in which all citizens work less in the traditional sense and more in the sense described in this column, versus creating an authoritarian police state to manage the inevitable unrest that comes from huge portions of the population being idle and needy.
Given the past four decades of increasing appropriation of productivity gains by the wealthiest in our society, the trend is in the latter direction.
6
I am fine with lots of the innovations tech has brought into my life. I am reading the NYT on a tablet. What concerns me is appropriate technology. I need a new washing machine. My twenty five year old model is starting to fail. However, I cannot find a non digital replacement. I just want something simple that washes my clothes...a machine that does not need a surge protector or an expensive board replacement. Same for the stove.....if the electricity goes out I can't use the gas stove since you cannot light modern models with a match. Is there a reason I need a wi-fi enabled tea kettle to spy on me? Why is my cell phone now so expensive and disposable that it is on lease?
We need to focus less on the toys and more on the tech that helps people have access to basics like clean water. The real heart issue is about how much we can improve the quality of life for all folks not just people who want stuff.
We need to focus less on the toys and more on the tech that helps people have access to basics like clean water. The real heart issue is about how much we can improve the quality of life for all folks not just people who want stuff.
12
"Once scientific methods became enshrined, we used science and reason to navigate our way forward," the method is not used often enough. The method has been around for over 500 years. Until recently we have not known whether or not you should put a baby on its stomach or back.This could have easily been checked statically in numerous hospitals and wards using the method. The same goes for margarine vs. butter as a cholesterol inducing part of the diet in the blood. Many common unnecessary surgeries fit into this category.
A great number of things are not checked, many are wrong from any number of reasons. Overconfidence,tradition,political,greed,indifference or plain stubbornness, they all play a role. Contrary to the popular saying you can fix stupid. Its stubbornness that's the tough one
A great number of things are not checked, many are wrong from any number of reasons. Overconfidence,tradition,political,greed,indifference or plain stubbornness, they all play a role. Contrary to the popular saying you can fix stupid. Its stubbornness that's the tough one
1
Albert Einstein often advocated the need for well-compensated workers primarily because, he stated, "labor saving technology is what kept societies, particularly the US, in the forefront technological advancement in the world." He then went on to make examples of agricultural workers in Africa and Asia who still used farming equipment and animals that been used for centuries due to the pitiful wages paid to workers which caused NO motivation for any advanced equipment.
I don't believe anyone would argue with such a theory. However, it's what becomes of the money that is saved and accrued from new technology, where all opinions diverge. And it's the GOVERNMENT who's job it is to collect the statistics and information of a given society to help determine where all this new money should best be distributed.
Certainly nothing new here!
I don't believe anyone would argue with such a theory. However, it's what becomes of the money that is saved and accrued from new technology, where all opinions diverge. And it's the GOVERNMENT who's job it is to collect the statistics and information of a given society to help determine where all this new money should best be distributed.
Certainly nothing new here!
2
Mr. Friedman,
Please find me heart (or as you say, the ability to do the "right thing" as opposed to doing "things right" in our Republican congress or in Mr. Trump.
Is taking poor people health insurance money and giving it to the rich in form of tax cuts the right thing?
Is eliminating Social Security (in guise of reforming it) from the elderly, many of whom will not be able to survive without it, the right thing?
Sorry, Mr. Friedman. You seem to have way too much faith in the human race. Humans are the only specie on earth capable of harming other humans for no reason other than self interest. No other species in the animal kingdom are that heartless!
I'll take a machine over a human - able to do things right - any day and twice on Sunday!
Please find me heart (or as you say, the ability to do the "right thing" as opposed to doing "things right" in our Republican congress or in Mr. Trump.
Is taking poor people health insurance money and giving it to the rich in form of tax cuts the right thing?
Is eliminating Social Security (in guise of reforming it) from the elderly, many of whom will not be able to survive without it, the right thing?
Sorry, Mr. Friedman. You seem to have way too much faith in the human race. Humans are the only specie on earth capable of harming other humans for no reason other than self interest. No other species in the animal kingdom are that heartless!
I'll take a machine over a human - able to do things right - any day and twice on Sunday!
2
Nothing like opening a bottle of wine, putting on a good flick and cuddling up with your favorite digital device in front of a fake fireplace. Aw, the good life.
Bottom line humans won't change and get all compassionate towards one another. Sure some enlightened few will here and there but as a species we're dooming the planet and feel good pieces like this won't stop it. You want to really understand human nature, Mr. Friedman? Try reading "The Myth of Human Supremacy" by Derrick Jensen. Then reflect on the future of mankind and machines. Spoiler alert. You won't be feeling all warm and fuzzy about Paint Nite classes.
3
The ideas are correct, except for the one about 'hearts'. Our circle of 'trust', as humans, narrows as we gain wealth because we naturally move up the spectrum of conservatism as we have more 'mammon' to protect. In the process of creating the control and certainty that we need to 'guarantee/underwrite' our own personal existence, we narrow our 'circle of trust, and exclude those who we perceive to potentially threaten our certainty and control over the variables in life. We 'lock down' our 'rules of order', and filter out the background noise of the reality of the 'human condition'.
Those hearts are hardened against the very things that drive human progress and civilization forward. They demand that change can only occur when it clearly benefits or, at least, protects their status quo. They will simply not contribute to the greater common good, the platform of civilization, that got them where they are, without a guarantee that they either have to give up nothing, or receive a net gain.
It's not exactly cruel or directly inhumane, and it is human, but history tells us that it is not wise.
Those hearts are hardened against the very things that drive human progress and civilization forward. They demand that change can only occur when it clearly benefits or, at least, protects their status quo. They will simply not contribute to the greater common good, the platform of civilization, that got them where they are, without a guarantee that they either have to give up nothing, or receive a net gain.
It's not exactly cruel or directly inhumane, and it is human, but history tells us that it is not wise.
6
‘What does it mean to be human in the age of intelligent machines?’
In short: If machines can compete with people in thinking, what makes us humans unique?
The subject is too large for 1500 characters. Thus, this incomplete “response”.
Putting the cart in front of the oxen here:
thinking and intelligence: what are they exactly?
Write software to implement an ill defined concept but learn what to expect.
In general, someone said, cannot remember, I am only human, once a problem is well defined it is half solved. Solved includes demonstrating that the problem has no solutions.
What we have now are savant machines. When a savant machine will develop software to bootstrap itself on how to be better than a "simple" savant machine then we start talking.
Savant software is good enough to bring in the current economic disruptions.
But do not make the mistake to entrust your life to a savant, machine or human. Then only you'll dehumanize. Starting by stupidifying yourself. For example, keep yourself bound by GPS and you'll miss alternative routes and what you might encounter, any curiosity left?, along them. Or, more sinister, get manipulated by those who control or write the software on which paths to follow.
As for the future: will machines ever become intelligent?
As ill defined as "intelligence" is, there already is an answer and it is no. It is cold math proving this not outraged humanistic feelings.
Just one of the many fallouts of Godel's theorem.
In short: If machines can compete with people in thinking, what makes us humans unique?
The subject is too large for 1500 characters. Thus, this incomplete “response”.
Putting the cart in front of the oxen here:
thinking and intelligence: what are they exactly?
Write software to implement an ill defined concept but learn what to expect.
In general, someone said, cannot remember, I am only human, once a problem is well defined it is half solved. Solved includes demonstrating that the problem has no solutions.
What we have now are savant machines. When a savant machine will develop software to bootstrap itself on how to be better than a "simple" savant machine then we start talking.
Savant software is good enough to bring in the current economic disruptions.
But do not make the mistake to entrust your life to a savant, machine or human. Then only you'll dehumanize. Starting by stupidifying yourself. For example, keep yourself bound by GPS and you'll miss alternative routes and what you might encounter, any curiosity left?, along them. Or, more sinister, get manipulated by those who control or write the software on which paths to follow.
As for the future: will machines ever become intelligent?
As ill defined as "intelligence" is, there already is an answer and it is no. It is cold math proving this not outraged humanistic feelings.
Just one of the many fallouts of Godel's theorem.
1
I suggest that Tom re-reads Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.
6
My take on Uber and Amazon is a little different – with Uber providing a taxi service without the dispatcher and the driver and Amazon making these deliveries with drones it is not far off to imagine our world with all the transportation system without drivers – all semis on the road would drive continuously as the mandated rest for the drivers are no longer necessary- the truck stops/restaurants/showers etc. would not be needed; the solar panels on the trucks would produce enough energy to charge the cells/batteries needed for continuous operation. – Far flung deliveries would be done by other drones. –
Why would the businesses invest in out dated technology to bring more manufacturing jobs back to US? I guess President Elect has some work to do to keep his promises. If we are fighting wars with unmanned vehicles, robots for the ground wars etc. – now we would have a surplus in manpower from practically every field including Military. Would unemployment rate go up to 50% right here in US? What would happen to our population even with a good heart how would we react to others?
Today with <5% of unemployment we are having issues of sharing and caring by paying fair share in taxes to provide for less fortunate, just imagine where we are headed!
Why would the businesses invest in out dated technology to bring more manufacturing jobs back to US? I guess President Elect has some work to do to keep his promises. If we are fighting wars with unmanned vehicles, robots for the ground wars etc. – now we would have a surplus in manpower from practically every field including Military. Would unemployment rate go up to 50% right here in US? What would happen to our population even with a good heart how would we react to others?
Today with <5% of unemployment we are having issues of sharing and caring by paying fair share in taxes to provide for less fortunate, just imagine where we are headed!
4
Interesting but overly simplistic. Creating "Emotive" computers is in fact what I do. These are computers that sense, and respond with, "emotion." In the short term, our efforts will not surpass humans but we are already better than people at sensing the underlying emotional state of the words people write online. What we need to think about is how to begin to compensate people without "work" (some limited number of people will be very valuable and make a lot; most will make zero if they are compensated based on their productive value). Eventually of course humans and computers will become the same thing.
4
As simple as ABC? As usual with you religious and scientific believers, the rewards of your faith are promised to all - tomorrow, never today. Quite often, tomorrow never arrives.
My mother would have called the way you're talking as nothing more then sentimental hogwash. Then she'd tell me to feed the chickens and take out the trash. Do more of that kind of stuff and the heart finds itself in the process.
7
Mr. Friedman you will learn that automation is not such a good thing without a world wide aggressive family planning policy. We need jobs and ways to live...not more automation. Or we need to cut 4 billion people
3
Yes, family planning is needed. Too many "thinkers", apparently including Tom Friedman, seem to think that our planet can successfully accommodate an infinite number of homo sapiens.
Again if you want to limit population growth educate woman. It is the tried and true method.
The "Lexus and the Olive Tree" thesis was that upholding materialistic and mechanistic values (the Lexus) over spiritual values (symbolized by the olive tree) was the key to human and societal well-being; the telos of history international consensus, once the last retrograde spiritualist holdouts were vanquished, that human fulfillment was based on McDonalds, cool automobiles and wealth, which is to say, 80s-style materialism.
It is, by the way, my personal feeling that few humans alive contributed more. To Mr. Trump's electoral victory than Mr. Friedman's fanatical propaganda on behalf of materialistic consumerism, particularly that anti-spirituality manifesto mocking cultural skepticism toward the narcissistic and hedonistic values Trump has always personified.
Is there something like a mea culpa lurking beneath the surface of Mr. Friedman's late recognition "homo economicus" may turn out to be a limited, and rather impoverished understanding of humanity that ultimately legitimized electing a narcissistic, sybarite casino operator to the White House? No, accepting fault and responsibility, like their partner humility, are too inconsistent with idolizing money and business. At best, Friedman may evolve ("that was the truth then, supported by the evidence"), but not admit wrong or intellectual culpability.
It is, by the way, my personal feeling that few humans alive contributed more. To Mr. Trump's electoral victory than Mr. Friedman's fanatical propaganda on behalf of materialistic consumerism, particularly that anti-spirituality manifesto mocking cultural skepticism toward the narcissistic and hedonistic values Trump has always personified.
Is there something like a mea culpa lurking beneath the surface of Mr. Friedman's late recognition "homo economicus" may turn out to be a limited, and rather impoverished understanding of humanity that ultimately legitimized electing a narcissistic, sybarite casino operator to the White House? No, accepting fault and responsibility, like their partner humility, are too inconsistent with idolizing money and business. At best, Friedman may evolve ("that was the truth then, supported by the evidence"), but not admit wrong or intellectual culpability.
4
By the way, much of what we are seeing in neoconservative self-second-guessing (in which category I place this article) is clearly a spirit of "if you can't beat 'em, co-opt 'em!" All of Mr. Friedman's explicit and implicit critiques were not only presupposed and advanced by religious doctrines and perspectives Friedman has systematically marginalized, they were the central themes advanced by anti-technocratic writers like the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm, Marcuse et al.), Hannah Arendt, and dozens if not hundreds of writers who grasped the pathology of Tom Friedman, the University of Chicago economics department, Alan Greenspan (all of whom could hold up Mr. Trump, who once said "you can never be too greedy" as their 'spiritual' ideal) dogma.
All these figures are now quietly murmuring, as inconspicuously as they can while still taking credit for improving (for example the university of Chicago quietly morphing its intellectually bankrupt rational choice/human capital paradigm into "behavioral economics," which turns out to be nothing less than a repudiation of the nonsense they received so many bogus prizes for, built so many bogus careers on, and ravaged so MANY lives with), "oops."
All these figures are now quietly murmuring, as inconspicuously as they can while still taking credit for improving (for example the university of Chicago quietly morphing its intellectually bankrupt rational choice/human capital paradigm into "behavioral economics," which turns out to be nothing less than a repudiation of the nonsense they received so many bogus prizes for, built so many bogus careers on, and ravaged so MANY lives with), "oops."
3
Friedman writes, "While humans can act from fear and anger, and be harmful, at their most elevated, they can inspire and be virtuous."
No doubt true. But after the results of our most recent election, methinks thou doth too radically underestimates the role of that "fear and anger" in the human animal.
Those qualities are why we have a multi-trillion dollar war/spook/prison industrial complex to keep us "safe." Those qualities are why our duly-elected representatives are fully prepared to throw millions of their fellow citizens off the insurance rolls to fend for themselves. Those qualities are why we are too frightened to grant legal status to millions of "illegal aliens" (talk about a de-humanizing term) who have lived, and worked, among us for years or to grant asylum to other human beings suffering mightily, in part, because of our meddling in their affairs to keep gas cheap.
Maybe it's time for "intelligent" machines to take over because, even though they may not have hearts, they also do not suffer from having the reptilian part of our brains. And I fear that, in this intimately interconnected, vastly overpopulated planet where every technological advance is weaponized to keep MY tribe "safe," it is the reptile in us that is going to destroy us all.
No doubt true. But after the results of our most recent election, methinks thou doth too radically underestimates the role of that "fear and anger" in the human animal.
Those qualities are why we have a multi-trillion dollar war/spook/prison industrial complex to keep us "safe." Those qualities are why our duly-elected representatives are fully prepared to throw millions of their fellow citizens off the insurance rolls to fend for themselves. Those qualities are why we are too frightened to grant legal status to millions of "illegal aliens" (talk about a de-humanizing term) who have lived, and worked, among us for years or to grant asylum to other human beings suffering mightily, in part, because of our meddling in their affairs to keep gas cheap.
Maybe it's time for "intelligent" machines to take over because, even though they may not have hearts, they also do not suffer from having the reptilian part of our brains. And I fear that, in this intimately interconnected, vastly overpopulated planet where every technological advance is weaponized to keep MY tribe "safe," it is the reptile in us that is going to destroy us all.
9
Friedman wants to turn sympathy and fellow feeling into a marketable commodity, to convert "human connection" into capital that can be monetized to produce "enduring winners." This sounds like the final and most dehumanizing stage of capitalism in which everything is up for sale, but Friedman fails to see the irony.
5
" I think therefore I am " had nothing to do with what Tom is saying ... It was a means for Descartes to prove to himself that he exists and is not dreaming , hallucinating , or being tricked by a metaphysical power ...
3
The GOP hasn't a heart either - so while machines evolve, seems some portion of 'humanity' devolves...
6
Feelings are the brain interacting with the body via chemicals. We feel hunger, pain, etc. and these become the basis for other abstracted emotions. Nothing too special about it and no reason computers can't eventually do the same, in fact, it's probably important to the development of AI that scientists figure out how to make a computer "feel", perhaps via the threat of "death". Nothing develops intelligence more than having to get out of a dangerous situation.
We should be using computers to govern. It's time to get rid of greedy politicians and their PR teams that manipulate the voting population. Use algorithms to design policy and let the media report (accurately) on the results, then let people vote for maintaining or abandoning specific programs.
We should be using computers to govern. It's time to get rid of greedy politicians and their PR teams that manipulate the voting population. Use algorithms to design policy and let the media report (accurately) on the results, then let people vote for maintaining or abandoning specific programs.
2
Hearts, yes. But more importantly the sort of human perspective and understanding that can only come from a strong background in the humanities, as evidenced by Friedman in his discussion of Descartes and the scientific revolution.
1
'Therefore, Seidman added, our highest self-conception needs to be redefined from “I think, therefore I am” to “I care, therefore I am; I hope, therefore I am; I imagine, therefore I am. I am ethical, therefore I am. I have a purpose, therefore I am. I pause and reflect, therefore I am.”'
Given the incentive systems currently operative within our crony capitalist economy, how long will it be before these distinctively human qualities, grace in their embodied manifestations, and their tangible workplace results will figure into annual employee reviews, and serve as bases for increasing salaries and rewarding bonuses?
How long before voters will view these qualities as desirable in political candidates and will vote accordingly?
How long before ethical education, aesthetics and value theory become major components of educational curricula?
Or will the crony capitalist incentive system remain firmly in place assuring that the highest economic rewards and political offices go to those who treasure power over other humans above all else? Will workaholics, borderline sociopaths and the most greedy among us still be richly rewarded for their indifference to what makes humans distinctive and for their ability to view employees as commodities to be dealt with as efficiently as possible--as expendable and mutually substituent parts within the giant, opaque and complex crony capitalist machine?
Will rational calculation continue to dismiss "heart" as economically irrelevant?
Given the incentive systems currently operative within our crony capitalist economy, how long will it be before these distinctively human qualities, grace in their embodied manifestations, and their tangible workplace results will figure into annual employee reviews, and serve as bases for increasing salaries and rewarding bonuses?
How long before voters will view these qualities as desirable in political candidates and will vote accordingly?
How long before ethical education, aesthetics and value theory become major components of educational curricula?
Or will the crony capitalist incentive system remain firmly in place assuring that the highest economic rewards and political offices go to those who treasure power over other humans above all else? Will workaholics, borderline sociopaths and the most greedy among us still be richly rewarded for their indifference to what makes humans distinctive and for their ability to view employees as commodities to be dealt with as efficiently as possible--as expendable and mutually substituent parts within the giant, opaque and complex crony capitalist machine?
Will rational calculation continue to dismiss "heart" as economically irrelevant?
3
Descartes was much deeper philosophically than just being human.
He meant that thinking was feeling that he existed as a physical being, that he had heart, was self conscious, and not a machine.
He meant that thinking was feeling that he existed as a physical being, that he had heart, was self conscious, and not a machine.
2
Software's success all depends on the data... At some point someone or something will throw in a monkey wrench to muck it all up.
2
Speaking of heart one has to see that todays technology deminishes average people and is a giant lever for the rich and powerful. Pope Francis called it the globalization of suffering. The intersection of technology and vast sumes of money is human pain. I'm a little surprised by Friedman's take on this. It seems very pie in the sky. He must know there are mountains of suffering followed by violence between here and there
6
So far, the technological revolution has caused more mediation, more heads buried in screens, and more anomie.
Friedman offers no justification for his optimism that more humanity is just around the corner, or that humanity is economically valuable in the new era.
Friedman offers no justification for his optimism that more humanity is just around the corner, or that humanity is economically valuable in the new era.
1
Distorting the meaning of a philosopher's famous sentence and building up on this twisted interpretation is a poor way to establish credibility. A computer would not have been able to misread Descartes like Mr. Friedman's guru, so, I guess, would not have produced a feel good column reassuring us that our species would never be outsourced by its creation. I actually believe that, but not because of pieces like this.
4
Wonder if Watson could complain and distort? Frightful thought, isn't it? I'll side w Tom on this one.
Wow, $50,000 a year for teaching painting! Incredible! [/sarcasm].
Hope the franchisee is doing better than that.
Hope the franchisee is doing better than that.
1
The dignity of man his gained thru his/her contributions to society, contributions to family and community. If you cannot have a family because you cannot put a roof over your head, work at a job for a living wage, put food on the table than the dignity of man is lost.
Our leaders (plutocrats) have sold our souls to the machine. Humans/humanity will become endangered.
Your spin does not cut it Tom as usual.
Our leaders (plutocrats) have sold our souls to the machine. Humans/humanity will become endangered.
Your spin does not cut it Tom as usual.
1
First, it's silly to perpetuate the antiquated notion that our emotions originate from the muscle in our chest that has the sole function of pumping blood, even when one knows better and just can't resist the music of "Hands to Heart to Heart."
Second, the wiring of our brains produces, in equal measure, both the warm and fuzzy emotions lauded in today's column and those that produce the misery and venality that we see all around us. You can't have one without the other, so, with our "hearts" fully engaged in a post-thinking era, we'll continue to both love and hate, share and hoard, protect and destroy.
Third, there's no logic is asserting that highly advanced artificial intelligence couldn't, at some point, purge from its programming whatever it has seen to be so destructive to the biologically evolved species of primate that initially, way back in the 21st century, created it. There's nothing stopping AI from becoming as compassionate as we are, if not in "feeling" then in effect.
Fourth, if somehow we managed to leave the heavy thinking to AI, fully engage our positive emotions while subduing our negative ones, and focus our energy on creating a more compassionate society, what will we do with the planet's 10 billion unemployed people? Paint-Nites won't cut it.
Second, the wiring of our brains produces, in equal measure, both the warm and fuzzy emotions lauded in today's column and those that produce the misery and venality that we see all around us. You can't have one without the other, so, with our "hearts" fully engaged in a post-thinking era, we'll continue to both love and hate, share and hoard, protect and destroy.
Third, there's no logic is asserting that highly advanced artificial intelligence couldn't, at some point, purge from its programming whatever it has seen to be so destructive to the biologically evolved species of primate that initially, way back in the 21st century, created it. There's nothing stopping AI from becoming as compassionate as we are, if not in "feeling" then in effect.
Fourth, if somehow we managed to leave the heavy thinking to AI, fully engage our positive emotions while subduing our negative ones, and focus our energy on creating a more compassionate society, what will we do with the planet's 10 billion unemployed people? Paint-Nites won't cut it.
1
This is a nice thought and it speaks of a concept that is so foreign to Republican Party and Donald Trump that it will never have a chance of becoming the new normal for at least the next 4 years. There will be small outposts of humanity but they will be crushed as fast as they pop up. There is no way we can have a heart based society when we can't even embrace the idea health care. We now have a government that is going to strip away health care from it's citizens, people are going to die, go bankrupt and suffer great financial psychical and emotional hardship as a result. When heartless people run your government and a computer has more compassion than you congressman you cannot have a heart based society. The closest we will get is a heart pin on Senators lapel next to his United Health care logo, money has no heart.
2
The tech revolution has hitherto affected mostly blue collar jobs and the more routine white-collar jobs, It's now climbing the ladder at an increasing pace and displacing or threatening even highly-skilled people.
Since the beginning of the industrial age, there has always been a distinction between labor and management, but sooner or later it will dawn on higher levels of salary-earners, who used to look down on labor, that they too are labor, and their interests are the same. Then, either the revolution will come or society will learn to adjust to share the fruits of production more equitably. Our constitution couldn't have phrased it better: The General Welfare - a socialist concept if ever there was one.
Since the beginning of the industrial age, there has always been a distinction between labor and management, but sooner or later it will dawn on higher levels of salary-earners, who used to look down on labor, that they too are labor, and their interests are the same. Then, either the revolution will come or society will learn to adjust to share the fruits of production more equitably. Our constitution couldn't have phrased it better: The General Welfare - a socialist concept if ever there was one.
13
Hands to heads to hearts is a sentimental and desperate sounding response. "Paint night, mixed with drinking" makes me cringe ( and I'm a painter and enjoy a drink... not while painting.)
What will be required is a definition of human fulfillment and worth not based on a 9-5 job. Seems the Scandinavian countries have a start on that. There are so many places where the human touch is value added... from simple domestic tasks to environmental conservation. A false dichotomy between head and heart is not needed to justify human worth. Liberation from many jobs should free people to other tasks... such as care giving.
What will be required is a definition of human fulfillment and worth not based on a 9-5 job. Seems the Scandinavian countries have a start on that. There are so many places where the human touch is value added... from simple domestic tasks to environmental conservation. A false dichotomy between head and heart is not needed to justify human worth. Liberation from many jobs should free people to other tasks... such as care giving.
40
We have artificial arms. legs, etc. We can have artificial brains too.
1
This is the techno way of saying "for the public good"; the tech-savvy world wants to eschew the old jargon for the sake of "innovation" & being on the cutting edge of ideas, but some powerful ideas are as old as the hills.
So let's get to the meat of the matter: what are your ideas that best fend for "the public good", given our charged political culture? What individuals do with their heart is one thing, but what can collective, civic-minded hearts do which is cutting edge?
So let's get to the meat of the matter: what are your ideas that best fend for "the public good", given our charged political culture? What individuals do with their heart is one thing, but what can collective, civic-minded hearts do which is cutting edge?
2
"Machines an be programmed to do the next thing right" - Maybe we have found a replacement to government bureaucrats.
2
Let's do lunch! My robot will be over to pick-up your robot, precisely at 11:45. Tell it not to be late, since RAM needs to get a Malware check-up at 2:00. Bye!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
Yes, I'd like a STEMpathy job, but no one will hire me at 55. Fewer jobs means a later start and a bitter end to one's working life. Training? I have 3 degrees from top schools - should I get a 4th? There is no way around this; we have too many humans.
7
Maybe “I think, therefore I am” should be redefined to:
“I care that others see me as a caring person, therefore I am.”
“I care that others see me as a creative person, therefore I am.”
“I care that others see me as an ethical person, therefore I am.”
“I care that others see me as a person who matters, therefore I am.”
More than anything, most people want to matter. When technology takes away our jobs, our individuality and our usefulness, our love affair with technology may go flat.
“I care that others see me as a caring person, therefore I am.”
“I care that others see me as a creative person, therefore I am.”
“I care that others see me as an ethical person, therefore I am.”
“I care that others see me as a person who matters, therefore I am.”
More than anything, most people want to matter. When technology takes away our jobs, our individuality and our usefulness, our love affair with technology may go flat.
4
In seeking "hearts" and to put human values into our technology-based world, I always return to Licklider's concept of "man-computer symbiosis." Not man versus computer, but a symbiotic combination.
For a major class of such issues, I suggest there are symbiotic ways to re-center digital commerce on human values. This is the topic of my new book, "FairPay: Adaptively Win-Win Customer Relationships" and more briefly in my recent post, "How Market Commerce Can Become More Cooperative, Fair, and Human."
The core idea is that instead of algorithms seeking to sell more widgets, we can turn our algorithms to efficiently support cooperative relationships between automated businesses and human consumers that seek to maximize their lifetime value. This can enable a re-focus on individual human values that was lost in the last century because non-algorithmic mass-marketing could not scale to address individual human values. Now our new digital technologies can do that, but we have not yet realized that. FairPay structures "dialogs about value" that can be automated and serve to individualize commercial relationships, to put our human values -- including "externalities" and triple bottom lines -- into the single bottom line.
For a major class of such issues, I suggest there are symbiotic ways to re-center digital commerce on human values. This is the topic of my new book, "FairPay: Adaptively Win-Win Customer Relationships" and more briefly in my recent post, "How Market Commerce Can Become More Cooperative, Fair, and Human."
The core idea is that instead of algorithms seeking to sell more widgets, we can turn our algorithms to efficiently support cooperative relationships between automated businesses and human consumers that seek to maximize their lifetime value. This can enable a re-focus on individual human values that was lost in the last century because non-algorithmic mass-marketing could not scale to address individual human values. Now our new digital technologies can do that, but we have not yet realized that. FairPay structures "dialogs about value" that can be automated and serve to individualize commercial relationships, to put our human values -- including "externalities" and triple bottom lines -- into the single bottom line.
Humanity has God in the Palm of there Hand! It is the Smart Phone with it's infinity amount of Apps. Just Think(I Am) of children born on this Planet in 2017 and there relationship to the Living God which is the Smart Phone with it's billions upon billions of Apps. The Prophet Steve Jobs place the "I" in the palm of your hand which in no uncertain terms will erase how you think in a basic, fundamental and personal way in the near Future. Why think when you have the answer immediately in the Palm of your Hand. The Smart Phone is your Brain for All Mankind from this day Forward! The Machine and Humanity have become One! Good-Luck To All
while it is true that technology can be programmed to do many jobs, it is misleading to say that machines can think. The Turing test doesn't really go after the issue of whether machines can think and ultimately the notion that they can think is hyperbolic punditry.
Computers can only do what they are programmed to do. Take a fairly complex job like picking stocks: you plug in a number of variables (momentum, short interest, PE ratio, market cap, PEG ratio, etc.) and you devise a set of rules -- and pretty soon you can have a machine that can probably out trade most humans. Why? Not because they can out think us, but because the rules have been so precisely defined by humans and the emotion (fear, greed, etc.) filtered out.
But that doesn't mean machines can think. And because we're not aware of how it is we think, how creative ideas or approaches come about, it is unlikely that computers can ever take over that function. Until a computer or robot or whatever suddenly starts displaying new behaviors that weren't programmed in, I don't believe we can make the assertion that machines can think. You can design a chess playing program that with enough power can analyze each position, all possible moves and their implications then pick the best possible move. But until the computer can devise strategies that aren't programmed into it -- it's not thinking.
Computers can only do what they are programmed to do. Take a fairly complex job like picking stocks: you plug in a number of variables (momentum, short interest, PE ratio, market cap, PEG ratio, etc.) and you devise a set of rules -- and pretty soon you can have a machine that can probably out trade most humans. Why? Not because they can out think us, but because the rules have been so precisely defined by humans and the emotion (fear, greed, etc.) filtered out.
But that doesn't mean machines can think. And because we're not aware of how it is we think, how creative ideas or approaches come about, it is unlikely that computers can ever take over that function. Until a computer or robot or whatever suddenly starts displaying new behaviors that weren't programmed in, I don't believe we can make the assertion that machines can think. You can design a chess playing program that with enough power can analyze each position, all possible moves and their implications then pick the best possible move. But until the computer can devise strategies that aren't programmed into it -- it's not thinking.
23
A brain is an analog computer (similar to old analog music synthesizers that do math on continually changing signals, instead of one's and zeros).
Since continuous data has an infinite number of states instead of just two the brain, does far more complex math than a computer.
According to evolutionary biologists, caring was probably wired into our brains, when helping someone with similar DNA to your own helped that DNA to thrive.
People that think that survival of the fittest teaches us to put competition first, have not learned it's most important lesson. It is cooperation that has dominated, not "rugged individuals."
A wolf pack is strong. A lone wolf will soon find a pack or die. Humans deprived of other humans soon go insane. Solitary confinement is one of the worst tortures you can inflict.
The human race should be cooperating to help each other thrive. Instead a few psychopathic billionaires, by buying most media, have sold the world a fairy tale about rugged individuals who create billions of dollars all by themselves.
It is destroying us and the planet.
Cooperate to save the world.
Since continuous data has an infinite number of states instead of just two the brain, does far more complex math than a computer.
According to evolutionary biologists, caring was probably wired into our brains, when helping someone with similar DNA to your own helped that DNA to thrive.
People that think that survival of the fittest teaches us to put competition first, have not learned it's most important lesson. It is cooperation that has dominated, not "rugged individuals."
A wolf pack is strong. A lone wolf will soon find a pack or die. Humans deprived of other humans soon go insane. Solitary confinement is one of the worst tortures you can inflict.
The human race should be cooperating to help each other thrive. Instead a few psychopathic billionaires, by buying most media, have sold the world a fairy tale about rugged individuals who create billions of dollars all by themselves.
It is destroying us and the planet.
Cooperate to save the world.
it would be nice that "machines only do what we program into them", except that there are machines which can learn, and "act" based on this learning.
1
Szafran -- no, that's not true. We can teach computers to learn based on recognized inputs, but the learning rules are the rules we program in.
In the 1950s, an unusually sophisticated comic book had a sci-fi story about a post-nuclear-war culture in which neo-primitive Americans fearfully huddled in caves and worshipped a washing machine as God.
Minds think with conscious connections. Machines don't think. Machines make physical connections, like pushing a pen with one's hand. And emotion is not a substitute for or a proper guide for mind. Machines are not mystical sources of wisdom.
Mind, focused, thru the senses, onto concrete reality, is the source of wisdom, as America's tragically brief, founding, Enlightenment culture knew. Descartes' modernism, with its hidden mysticism, should be replaced by Ayn Rand's, "I am, therefore I'll think."
Minds think with conscious connections. Machines don't think. Machines make physical connections, like pushing a pen with one's hand. And emotion is not a substitute for or a proper guide for mind. Machines are not mystical sources of wisdom.
Mind, focused, thru the senses, onto concrete reality, is the source of wisdom, as America's tragically brief, founding, Enlightenment culture knew. Descartes' modernism, with its hidden mysticism, should be replaced by Ayn Rand's, "I am, therefore I'll think."
1
Ayn Rand grew up in a centralized economy and thought she was rebelling against it.
What she and her followers have created is another centralized economy. The modern world's "free" markets has centralized half of the world's wealth and most of its power in the hands of a few thousand billionaires and near billionaires.
They own most of the world's capital and resources, and wield undo influence over the rest. Some of that influence comes from "donations" to politicians, but most of it comes from having bought all global mass media, and subtly using it to divide and conquer us, and to convince is that only they have all the answers.
Nation states are being subsumed into a global economy, where the most important decisions are concentrated in the hands of people like Donald Trump, who have far more power than they have the wisdom to employ. Casinos don't lose money unless the owner steals it all. The same with global banks.
If you want a decentralized economy, we have to maximise democracy, spreading the power, not markets, which centralized it.
What she and her followers have created is another centralized economy. The modern world's "free" markets has centralized half of the world's wealth and most of its power in the hands of a few thousand billionaires and near billionaires.
They own most of the world's capital and resources, and wield undo influence over the rest. Some of that influence comes from "donations" to politicians, but most of it comes from having bought all global mass media, and subtly using it to divide and conquer us, and to convince is that only they have all the answers.
Nation states are being subsumed into a global economy, where the most important decisions are concentrated in the hands of people like Donald Trump, who have far more power than they have the wisdom to employ. Casinos don't lose money unless the owner steals it all. The same with global banks.
If you want a decentralized economy, we have to maximise democracy, spreading the power, not markets, which centralized it.
Marx's blood-drenched claim that the political power to enforce obedience equals the economic power to produce material values is false. Your hidden, religious terror of man's independent mind is absurd. Capitalism has as many centers of economic power as there are workers. Both an assembly line worker and the worker who created and manages the company have independent, economic power. Both are individuals with independent minds and individual achievement. More productive individuals benefit, not harm, the less productive individuals. The multi-billion dollar oil firms who sell gasoline for your car benefit you. You agree or you would not buy from them.
Why makes us human is a question for the ages -- more so today as our tools and tricks draw us closer to machines in our image. Heart, yes, Tom, but let's not forget satire, humor and a sense of the absurd.
Friedman has obviously been hired to be the chief cheerleader for the rise of the robots. But if, as McKinsey has projected, we lose 47% of ALL jobs in the next thirty years because of these wondrous machines in this Brave New World, all the heart in the world is not going to be able to keep America from being a Hunger Games society. What our hearts should start creating now is a political revolution designed to manage the radical transformation of our society caused by the robots. These robots have the capacity eventually to create a society of much greater productivity and hence wealth. If we have a political economic revolution which manages the transition from work to leisure for huge numbers of Americans, life could be better than ever for all Americans. But if we simply do political economic business as usual in America, we face the pauperization of our masses, as all the profits go to the top .1%, and a fascist society in which the masses can only be controlled with the forces of a massive, dystopian police state. Bernie Sanders' "revolution" is a start towards a different and better future in the coming age of machines. Let's hope a majority of our voters can be found before long to support this better future, instead of having a majority conned into voting for their own economic suicide.
1
Very true, but Bernie doesn't claim to own the revolution (I prefer"evolution"). He knows that it is made up of millions of people that all must play a party. He wanted to bring some of that energy into the Democratic Party, and he would have been our man on the inside.
But he calls his organization Our Revolution because that is how it started and that is how it will win.
But he calls his organization Our Revolution because that is how it started and that is how it will win.
1
I eat, therefore I am. What if I don't eat? I die. And then I am not. How do I buy my food? I do not work. I do not get paid. Maybe I am not.
2
That is silly but poignant. Most people's identities are tied to what they do. When the robots do everything, who am I?
Um - has anyone seen this happening, AT ALL? Or, in fact, are we more and more faced with the world so well depicted in the Ken Loach film, "I, Daniel Blake"? A world of endless recorded phone "menus," where companies make it harder and harder to reach an actual human being, and where the human being displays little or no human understanding of your situation, once reached? Maybe this will all come "in the future." But we must be vigilant: There is nothing in the structure of capitalism that will ensure, a priori, that these more "human" elements are in fact integrated and honored.
3
If "heart" is what distinguishes human beings from machines, then we need to confront the reality that whatever force drives the universe appears to be more machine than human. Are we made in the image of God or are our machines?
Basic to every economic theory are the assumptions made about the nature of the human person. Is a person capital, a "thing" to be manipulated and used to the greatest advantage for the system? Or is a person the carrier of something eternal, of inestimable value who deserves nurturance, care, empathy, dignity, a minimal standard of living?
We cannot know anyone's fundamental view of personhood by his words, but his behaviors cannot hide it. (And I use "his" quite purposely. Most women, given their nature and experiences, have a fuller and more complete understanding of personhood.)
Seems everyone considers him/herself as an entity of great value. However, one's view of others is the real tell.
We cannot know anyone's fundamental view of personhood by his words, but his behaviors cannot hide it. (And I use "his" quite purposely. Most women, given their nature and experiences, have a fuller and more complete understanding of personhood.)
Seems everyone considers him/herself as an entity of great value. However, one's view of others is the real tell.
4
When Descartes wrote, "Cogito ergo sum," wasn't his real point not that thinking distinguished humans from the rest of the animal kingdom, but that the subjective experience of thinking made the existence of oneself as a thinker a bedrock certainty among the manifold things that could be reasonably doubted?
As for computers never being able to have "a heart," can we really afford to blithely accept this as true, or should we begin contemplating how we humans are going to manage in a world where machines can do virtually everything we can do, only far, far better?
As for computers never being able to have "a heart," can we really afford to blithely accept this as true, or should we begin contemplating how we humans are going to manage in a world where machines can do virtually everything we can do, only far, far better?
2
The Paint While Drinking company has found the true difference between computers and humans. Both can paint. Only humans can get drunk.
4
“It will be all the things that the heart can do,” [Seidman] explained. “Humans can love, they can have compassion, they can dream..."
How does having a heart allow one to dream or imagine? What does this mean, either literally or figuratively?? Likewise, how does a heart allow one to have a purpose or "pause and reflect"? The idea that compassion and love are what make us human is compelling and interesting, but sloppy rhetoric won't advance the case and is frustratingly not useful.
How does having a heart allow one to dream or imagine? What does this mean, either literally or figuratively?? Likewise, how does a heart allow one to have a purpose or "pause and reflect"? The idea that compassion and love are what make us human is compelling and interesting, but sloppy rhetoric won't advance the case and is frustratingly not useful.
1
I believe that people and societies today are generally more compassionate than they were several decades ago — because technological progress has opened up new opportunities for collaboration and cooperation. Society is now less Hobbesian and more communitarian. More people are reading books, more ideas are being scrutinized, more paradigms are being shattered, and new technologies are adding more leisure time for people to get to globally communicate with each other as fellow human beings. As Talmudic debates are more popular today than at any time in the history of Judaism, even more Christians are engaging in interpretive biblical studies. As the world becomes flatter, more people are acknowledging that mutual commonalities are more powerful than are differences. Social progress may be arduous and painful, but it is unstoppable.
12
To borrow from Laws of Thermodynamics, our social entropy is ever increasing.
Good try but panglossian. Politician, Doctors, Insurance companies and businesses will leverage technology to gain control over individual behavior to such an extent that unless we assert and enforce more strongly an individual right to liberty (like in the US declaration it includes misbehavior), just an appeal to humanism will be futile.
1
Perhaps redundant,.. but,..I think.therefore,... I think I will take a walk this morning, paint a picture later, write a poem maybe, daydream, about a dream I had last night, write some music inspired by that dream. Reflect upon the death of a friends son, contemplate my own mortality, marvel at the iinterplay of finches and chickadees, refill the bird feeder, reread and hopefully glean more incite from a Frost Poem,..hug my wife,...worry about a country with an electoral system that would permit the ascendancy of Trump to it's highest office. And finally, contemplate why, despite his repulsive narcissim, I would still rather have Trump be president than Ted Cruz.
35
The ideas in this op-ed have been around for over half a century. Check out numerous science fiction works and you will see that the man versus technology (including AI) has been extensively explored.
One thing that should be kept in mind, without extensive training in AI, you are unlikely to have the correct ideas as to what it is, what it can do and what it is capable of doing. The op-ed does get one thing right - AI is and will continue to be a revolutionary force.
One thing that should be kept in mind, without extensive training in AI, you are unlikely to have the correct ideas as to what it is, what it can do and what it is capable of doing. The op-ed does get one thing right - AI is and will continue to be a revolutionary force.
There is so much material here it's hard to know where to start. Back then there was more creativity in what was the sunny side of heaven under Regulus the heart of Leo. How did we ever find each other without cell phones while separated out and about, but we did, that is if we really wanted to. Great music, year after year to watch the girls go by, there was no app for that. And the big wheel slowly turned, Hal, open the door Hal, scariest part of the movie for me, yet nothing compared to what digital has reduced movies to be. And Watson will never even come close, he can't be taught how to keep up with time, he can't even see that the Moon is out tonight and conjunct our brightest star Venus in the sky. Never thought I would have to read that Americans love their televisions, do they really love all their other wintery fixed Air gadgets also. I turned my TV off 8 years ago, imagine that, there are no commercials under the Sun. This year Neptune is turning the corner on winter, leaving not much to see behind us anymore. We can only look forward now where everything is new, and in the distance is Aldebaran, that bright Fixed Star in Taurus that is the Eye of Spring.
The arrival of "intelligent machines" is a blessing in disguise; it will hopefully free ourselves to pursue the virtues of our spirit (however you define this uniquely human quality), as the automation of routine of work shortens our days of work, and allows us higher goals to understand ourselves, and how to become humble again; get rid, inasmuch as possible, of our ego, and greed, and other destructive evil issues lurking in our 'blind spots'. The 'great virtues', according to Comte-Sponville "(fidelity, prudence, temperance, courage, justice, compassion, mercy, gratitude, humility, tolerance, etc), may become unnecessary if we adopt the crown jewel of true humanity (and not accessible via A.I.), LOVE. "To love is to find one's riches outside oneself; love is poor, always, and the only wealth. Being rich in one's poverty thru want [passion], thru received and shared joy [friendship]; and finally, thru the joy that is given at a loss, the joy that is both given and given up [charity]. The absence of charity is what makes the virtues necessary. You mentioned Galileo and Copernicus; what about Blaise Pascal's (1623-1662) contribution: "What a chimera then is man! What a novelty, what a monster, what a chaos, contradiction and prodigy! Judge of all things, feeble earthworm, repository of truth, sewer of uncertainty and error, the glory and the scum of the universe". I defy you to find a machine capable of such contradictions, what if fed with garbage by our unloving hands.
Do we really want some oligarch machine-owner, paying us minimum wage for what is left of value in us - our hearts? What is that really worth to a Trump?
If machines will do the work for us, think for us, care for us - we will inevitably become like cattle to the machines and the owners of these machines. We will be stored in large human warehouses (China is already doing this) labeled Trump Human Storage Tower, followed and manipulated from birth to death, with human-to-human contact via Twitter (a division of Trump NLC - no liability company) through wireless Blue-Brain brain taps - forget Bluetooth.
If the Matrix pings your brain and you reply, you are.
"people will seek out more human-to-human connections" - Really? You mean through digital means, like Virtual Reality, Avatars, all carefully supervised and chaperoned by the machines.
Sorry, but empty hearts controlled by the masters of the machines seems heartless to me. And like Apple has already done - there is no ESCAPE key to save us.
"attributes that can’t be programmed into software, like passion, character and collaborative spirit.” Excuse me but these attributes aren't being taught to Human MBAs or other so called job creators and leaders.
Heartless STEMgressive and STEMpetitive jobs will out earn STEMpathy jobs.
Trump doesn't think, therefore he is.
If machines will do the work for us, think for us, care for us - we will inevitably become like cattle to the machines and the owners of these machines. We will be stored in large human warehouses (China is already doing this) labeled Trump Human Storage Tower, followed and manipulated from birth to death, with human-to-human contact via Twitter (a division of Trump NLC - no liability company) through wireless Blue-Brain brain taps - forget Bluetooth.
If the Matrix pings your brain and you reply, you are.
"people will seek out more human-to-human connections" - Really? You mean through digital means, like Virtual Reality, Avatars, all carefully supervised and chaperoned by the machines.
Sorry, but empty hearts controlled by the masters of the machines seems heartless to me. And like Apple has already done - there is no ESCAPE key to save us.
"attributes that can’t be programmed into software, like passion, character and collaborative spirit.” Excuse me but these attributes aren't being taught to Human MBAs or other so called job creators and leaders.
Heartless STEMgressive and STEMpetitive jobs will out earn STEMpathy jobs.
Trump doesn't think, therefore he is.
1
What if we can create compassionate machines, which would be in charge of decisions instead of humans,& these compassionate machines would lead the world in peace.The only problem I can see is that as long as people exist, they would find a way to corrupt these machines.
4
As long as the development and marketing of of all this new technology continues to be controlled by for-profit corporate entities, we will always be in a reactive mode, as Mr. Friedman is in his column, trying to preserve all of our enduring human values from being relentlessly monetized.
The only solution is to try, as best we can, in our everyday lives to channel these impersonal, technological forces into more rational, humane ends.
The only solution is to try, as best we can, in our everyday lives to channel these impersonal, technological forces into more rational, humane ends.
1
Human beings must learn to excel at being human. Love and humanity, compassion and empathy. Computers, machines and technology can complete tasks rapidly but they can not teach us how to excel as humans...as living beings that inhabit and share a planet that includes numerous living and evolving species. Unfortunately, during the past two decades too many human beings have allowed their offspring to be basically raised and taught by computers. Most human beings now understand more about how social media programming works than they comprehend about humanity. Your insights are not new. Sherry Turkle wrote a book ALONE TOGETHER several years ago. I encourage everyone to read it. Turn off your screen, take off you head phones and go outside and look up at the sky. Talk with people face-to-face. Throw balls for your dog and engage in the moment. For Human Beings, Learning is Lifelong. It's important to become aware of what we choose to learn.
2
what you say is reasonable and certainly worth discussing, but the more important issue will be what do we do with people , when they can no longer all produce tangible goods and services. One alternative will be to change the 40 hour work week into a 20 hour work week, allowing twicce as many people to have jobs. But even such a change will be predicated on a society where those with the means of ownership are willing to pay living wages to those now only working 20 hours. In a world where our needs are met by machines, who will determine who's needs are met? that is the bigger sociological question , and one that can only be answered by either love and sharing, or by bloodshed and war.
2
You can easily tell when a bubble is about to pop by the increasingly hysterical nature of the rhetoric surrounding it.
Artificial "intelligence" and machine "learning" are some of the most-hyped terms of the computer industry, and have been from the very start.
It's true that advances have been made over thirty years in the statistical weighting machines computers are able to run to handle basic, repetitive, static pattern-matching processes.
Your Amazon and Netflix recommendations, the types of ads surfaced by Google's Doubleclick (if you leave an ocean of cookies dangerously on your computer), are all very slightly better -- _very_ slightly, as everyone will agree -- than they were in, say, 1997.
Robotics automation has spread to handle more mundane, repetitive warehouse and factory tasks. Great! The less we treat people like machines, the better.
But seriously: a Lyft/Google car here, a drone there out in the empty countryside, does not some equivalent to the beginnings of the industrial revolution make, by an extreme long shot.
Repetitive work will continue to be automated, just as it has been since that 17th-century origin your collocutor for this article massively hypes. Bad poetry, dull articles and obvious sports news yes, can easily be churned out with the templates generated by increasingly sophisticated text-mining algorithms. Automated pop music? Sure, the latest stuff by humans is already dull and unimaginatively robotic at best; no changes there.
Artificial "intelligence" and machine "learning" are some of the most-hyped terms of the computer industry, and have been from the very start.
It's true that advances have been made over thirty years in the statistical weighting machines computers are able to run to handle basic, repetitive, static pattern-matching processes.
Your Amazon and Netflix recommendations, the types of ads surfaced by Google's Doubleclick (if you leave an ocean of cookies dangerously on your computer), are all very slightly better -- _very_ slightly, as everyone will agree -- than they were in, say, 1997.
Robotics automation has spread to handle more mundane, repetitive warehouse and factory tasks. Great! The less we treat people like machines, the better.
But seriously: a Lyft/Google car here, a drone there out in the empty countryside, does not some equivalent to the beginnings of the industrial revolution make, by an extreme long shot.
Repetitive work will continue to be automated, just as it has been since that 17th-century origin your collocutor for this article massively hypes. Bad poetry, dull articles and obvious sports news yes, can easily be churned out with the templates generated by increasingly sophisticated text-mining algorithms. Automated pop music? Sure, the latest stuff by humans is already dull and unimaginatively robotic at best; no changes there.
5
Although similar, yesterday is never today. Nature simply will not allow it!
Automation is largely responsible for the 3 million US jobs that were lost by the nations auto workers. It will be responsible for the 6 million US jobs that will be lost to autonomous, self driving vehicles. Not to mention, the collateral damage to the economy as a whole.
As with Obama care, there is no plan (certainly not a Republican plan) to replace those jobs. And, that's because the path forward requires a sharp and disruptive change from the learned 'lessons and practices of the past'. We need to rethink human labor, and the way that we value humans, in general.
That will require deep coordination, cooperation, and 'economic rethink', that is, "togetherness" and an expanded 'trust model, that is beyond the capacity of the most "conservative"among us.
We are in a battle, that is ultimately a class battle, between humans, and the idea that "business" is a valid proxy for humans. We don't elect people to delegate human destiny to "business", we elect them to do the hard work of fulfillment of human potential with a keen eye on protecting us against the forces that will disrupt the fulfillment of human potential. A primary force that works against that charter, is the idea that the 'rules of business' are absolute and immutable 'rules of order' that direct the course of human destiny. Humans have yet to abstract that essence in any meaningful, long-term way.
Automation is largely responsible for the 3 million US jobs that were lost by the nations auto workers. It will be responsible for the 6 million US jobs that will be lost to autonomous, self driving vehicles. Not to mention, the collateral damage to the economy as a whole.
As with Obama care, there is no plan (certainly not a Republican plan) to replace those jobs. And, that's because the path forward requires a sharp and disruptive change from the learned 'lessons and practices of the past'. We need to rethink human labor, and the way that we value humans, in general.
That will require deep coordination, cooperation, and 'economic rethink', that is, "togetherness" and an expanded 'trust model, that is beyond the capacity of the most "conservative"among us.
We are in a battle, that is ultimately a class battle, between humans, and the idea that "business" is a valid proxy for humans. We don't elect people to delegate human destiny to "business", we elect them to do the hard work of fulfillment of human potential with a keen eye on protecting us against the forces that will disrupt the fulfillment of human potential. A primary force that works against that charter, is the idea that the 'rules of business' are absolute and immutable 'rules of order' that direct the course of human destiny. Humans have yet to abstract that essence in any meaningful, long-term way.
The revolution occurring now is not so much the ai, but the much better our senses it is being paired with. A car that can "see" it's environment can be relatively easily programmed to drive using current ai.
In the Second Meditation, Descartes writes: "But what, then, am I? A thinking thing. And what is that? A thing which doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, does not will, and which also imagines and senses." By "thinking," Descartes did not just mean something like computing; he meant something much more like feeling, empathizing, and especially doubting.
11
Sadly, we have reached a point where machines can emulate all of those attributes. That, and the fact that modern neuo-science is disclosing the fact that we are simply what might be called 'autonomous, bio-chemical' robots. The worst part is that we are both physically and mentally weaker, slower, and less multi-tasking than our silicone 'cousins' (at least, in potential).
Deccartes may not have seen or predicted that, but I am sure that his modern equivalent does (or will). "I think, therefore I am" easily applies to all entities that have both sensory perception, the ability to rationalize it, and the ability to act autonomously based on it.
Deccartes may not have seen or predicted that, but I am sure that his modern equivalent does (or will). "I think, therefore I am" easily applies to all entities that have both sensory perception, the ability to rationalize it, and the ability to act autonomously based on it.
2016 was dominated by hate, anger, and fear. To overcome these low-level emotions and behaviors is to connect with the heart. Machines won't do this for us. Only by reconnecting with ourselves and others through compassion and empathy will we create a more hopeful and generous future.
5
Hate, fear, greed, jealousy, bigotry, and vengeance was used to pile up votes, but the key driver was the uncertainty and powerlessness of people whose lives are being disrupted by the three powerful forces: 1) global warming; 2) robots and automation; 3) globalization.
None of these issues can be resolved by a 'silver bullet', but they are in the hands of those who hold the 'economic strings' that determine the destiny of folks with lesser power and certainty; folks who have benefited the most from the 'platform of civilization' that American's have built, but who have been inured to the fact that "their share" was pure happenstance, and that "others" have participated.
We have the wealth to bridge people across the technological divide that we face, and 'reinvent' America, but it depends on 'risk taking', and open minded, reinvestment of all of that "happenstantial wealth". At present, we are stuck in the ditch of 'every man, woman, and child for themselves', a kind of 'sinking Titanic mentality' that 'pops up' when civilizations are at a tipping point that will determine their further rise or their imminent fall.
None of these issues can be resolved by a 'silver bullet', but they are in the hands of those who hold the 'economic strings' that determine the destiny of folks with lesser power and certainty; folks who have benefited the most from the 'platform of civilization' that American's have built, but who have been inured to the fact that "their share" was pure happenstance, and that "others" have participated.
We have the wealth to bridge people across the technological divide that we face, and 'reinvent' America, but it depends on 'risk taking', and open minded, reinvestment of all of that "happenstantial wealth". At present, we are stuck in the ditch of 'every man, woman, and child for themselves', a kind of 'sinking Titanic mentality' that 'pops up' when civilizations are at a tipping point that will determine their further rise or their imminent fall.
Data's dilemma. For him, it was how could he adapt and become more human; for us it's how can we remain human and use, not abuse, our creations and the world around us.
2
Either way, when it involves humans, the 'laws of the jungle' don't apply. Those laws are just a convenient excuse for predatory behavior.
It sounds almost too utopian; a global outpouring of "heart to heart" from humanity as artificial intelligence gains the upper hand technological. I don't buy it. People are generally self serving and greedy in their daily affairs. Sure we'll display empathy and compassion when it's appropriate, but at the end of the day humans have historically been "selfish creatures" taking way more than they've ever given back. Artificial intelligence will at some point exceed man's ability to "think and reason" to where humans in order to survive as a species will eventually have to merge with technology so completely they'll literally form a "new race" of techno-humanoids. God help us...
You have the correct period of comparison, 15-16th century, however the more profound parallel is in the realm of communication that the printing press unleashed, the Protestant reformation embraced, and the resulting national and social warfare consumed. I believe it is the communication revolution of today that is the fundamental ethical challenge. The talking heads are being talked past. Virtually all of the pundits were against Trump and Brexit. Did not matter. Communication is essentially no cost, as is miscommunication for the anonymous sender. The raw science of that period did not manifest in a meaningful way other than for navigation until the industrial revolution, late 18th century.
2
Thomas, human emotions ("heart" in your opinion piece) do not come from human heart, but from human brain, which artificial intelligence (AI) is trying to emulate. Your argument that machines cannot replace "heart" is so flawed!
It's presumptuous to try to interpret René Descartes' declaration "I think therefore I am," but I have always felt that, rather than saying anything about the distinction between human and animals, Descartes was saying that something is going on within his awareness. It’s not nothing. It’s thoughts and perceptions that try to make sense of the world around him. He thinks, therefore he is pretty sure he exists. At least his thoughts exist.
1
Most of the 4 million professional drivers soon to be dis-employed by automated vehicles will continue to live worse lives as a result. As today's "2016 in Charts" feature suggests, many will die younger and more miserably as a result. This will continue long after trendy suburbanites have moved on from Paint Nites to whatever passing fancy comes afterwards.
It is painfully clear that this is not an "interesting problem" to those who are shaping and evangelizing tomorrow's economy. Perhaps it will become more "interesting" as their victims move beyond Trump to even angrier and more authoritarian political engagements.
It is painfully clear that this is not an "interesting problem" to those who are shaping and evangelizing tomorrow's economy. Perhaps it will become more "interesting" as their victims move beyond Trump to even angrier and more authoritarian political engagements.
2
Very Interesting Mr. Friedman. But what do we do with the human beings who are unable to deal with the technological take over? The planet will have 10 billion of them wondering around needing food, housing, entertainment, etc. The machines will be owned by someone and built at locations owned most likely by capitalists who want to make as much money as possible.
Where is there a place for the so called 'heart'? The heart, by the way, is an organ that has no sentience. It is the brain where all the thoughts and emotions originate. Mr. Friedman uses a religious word that is unable to define clearly what he believes makes the human different from the machine, just some sort of vague human niceness..
The corollary of the 'heart' part of humans is that it causes us to lie and cheat, fight and kill, dissemble and exploit.
Feeling our way forward, as 'Rabbi' or is it 'Vicar' Friedman advocates, will make us just as susceptible to the foibles of the 'heart' as a sixteen-year old.
We are different to machines because, if we wish, we can invent a new language, let's call it a new 'symbolic order', with which to communicate with. Leaving machines lost in their own version of Punic or Hittite, symbolic orders that have lost their capacity to communicate in the modern world. We can outsmart machines by using our mind - not by being more sentimental than they are.
Where is there a place for the so called 'heart'? The heart, by the way, is an organ that has no sentience. It is the brain where all the thoughts and emotions originate. Mr. Friedman uses a religious word that is unable to define clearly what he believes makes the human different from the machine, just some sort of vague human niceness..
The corollary of the 'heart' part of humans is that it causes us to lie and cheat, fight and kill, dissemble and exploit.
Feeling our way forward, as 'Rabbi' or is it 'Vicar' Friedman advocates, will make us just as susceptible to the foibles of the 'heart' as a sixteen-year old.
We are different to machines because, if we wish, we can invent a new language, let's call it a new 'symbolic order', with which to communicate with. Leaving machines lost in their own version of Punic or Hittite, symbolic orders that have lost their capacity to communicate in the modern world. We can outsmart machines by using our mind - not by being more sentimental than they are.
1
The notion that the human mind and the "mind" of a computer are so similar as to make the human mind redundant in the age of the computer is ridiculous.
Because while it may be true that a computer can do many tasks that humans currently use their minds to do, the human mind is in no way limited to doing just those type of things that a computer is capable of.
Humans have the ability to create ideas, computers do not. An idea created by a human is something unique not just to the human mind in general, but unique to that particular human in particular. This is why out of hundreds of millions of humans only one of them will come up with a certain idea or theory. It is because the idea is not a given or predictable, which is what a computer is limited to, but is the unique creation of what is sometimes only one in a billion people, such as in an idea that is so new and important that it is deemed worthy of the Nobel prize.
This very op-ed page proves this concept that an idea is the unique creation of one particular person, as this very piece is the unique creation of Thomas Friedman. Even if billions of people were asked to write on this very subject not one of them would have written this exact piece. And the reason is that it is based on the unique thoughts and ideas of this writer.
And a computer has no thoughts and is not capable of creating a new idea. It is capable only of taking facts and mimicking human logic by reaching the inevitable logical conclusion.
Because while it may be true that a computer can do many tasks that humans currently use their minds to do, the human mind is in no way limited to doing just those type of things that a computer is capable of.
Humans have the ability to create ideas, computers do not. An idea created by a human is something unique not just to the human mind in general, but unique to that particular human in particular. This is why out of hundreds of millions of humans only one of them will come up with a certain idea or theory. It is because the idea is not a given or predictable, which is what a computer is limited to, but is the unique creation of what is sometimes only one in a billion people, such as in an idea that is so new and important that it is deemed worthy of the Nobel prize.
This very op-ed page proves this concept that an idea is the unique creation of one particular person, as this very piece is the unique creation of Thomas Friedman. Even if billions of people were asked to write on this very subject not one of them would have written this exact piece. And the reason is that it is based on the unique thoughts and ideas of this writer.
And a computer has no thoughts and is not capable of creating a new idea. It is capable only of taking facts and mimicking human logic by reaching the inevitable logical conclusion.
2
I'm wondering if we have dumbed down ourselves out of competing. My daughter and son-in-law each work for high tech computer companies in NYC (my daughter in AI). They make great salaries, have great day care, and live in the "best" neighborhood in Brooklyn. They have multiple degrees and have worked hard. They were totally blindsided by the election because they did not know of even one Trump supporter among their acquaintances or colleagues. After recovering a bit from the shock they are vowing to find ways in their personal lives to make the world a better place. They have "enough." And they want it for others. And are appalled and shocked that so many did not see things the way they did. A terrible but necessary awakening.
I don't see that the problem is machine learning. It is human beings. Anyone who, as I did, worked for a company (insurance) dependent on computers, and an in house staff of "techs" to help maintain them, knows that a rudimentary knowledge such as they have is not enough. I am afraid we have fallen so far behind in education that we may not be up to the task. The Republicans are happy making sure the ability to think logically is ignored. As Trump says, he loves the uneducated. We need to support workers who have lost their jobs (even if most of them are Trump supporters) and find ways to direct future generations. But the machines are not going away. Nor should they.
I don't see that the problem is machine learning. It is human beings. Anyone who, as I did, worked for a company (insurance) dependent on computers, and an in house staff of "techs" to help maintain them, knows that a rudimentary knowledge such as they have is not enough. I am afraid we have fallen so far behind in education that we may not be up to the task. The Republicans are happy making sure the ability to think logically is ignored. As Trump says, he loves the uneducated. We need to support workers who have lost their jobs (even if most of them are Trump supporters) and find ways to direct future generations. But the machines are not going away. Nor should they.
4
Tom, when's the last time you had a boss who bossed you? Who told you what to do, when to do it, then evaluated you on how well you did it, and dressed up the whole transaction with Orwellian language like "we're all one team here" Or "we're a family." ??? My point: The idea that humans have a heart is quaint and simple. I can't wait for a computer boss who's been programmed to be fair, objective, and reasonable. We may even get a computer with a larger heart than the limited one humans have.
12
Computer with a larger heart? Not if it's programmed by a human. So much for fail-safe.
Would any women like to share their thoughts?
1
I think that all aforementioned has little connection to reality. People are pushed away by technology for at least 300 years. And all those people found themselves somewhere else, in newly created economies. Progress takes jobs, but brings even more opportunities. From that perspective nothing is going to change.
If you think carefully, you will realize that most of the money you spend on three things: natural resources, manual crafts, human ideas. From that perspective machines will never be able to produce any of that.
If you think carefully, you will realize that most of the money you spend on three things: natural resources, manual crafts, human ideas. From that perspective machines will never be able to produce any of that.
1
Here we go again. Life on Thomas Friedman's Mysterious Island, where we find ourselves shipwrecked in an earthly paradise co-inhabited by benevolent machines of great intelligence, our individual hearts bound together & watched over by a sort of enlightened, unburdened, non-hermitic Captain Nemo, as all proceed to become part of a giant leisure class.
We should all be a little suspicious of "hearts" after experiencing that 60s slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right."
We should all be a little suspicious of "hearts" after experiencing that 60s slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right."
5
The Western focus on individual is the obstacle to get the new innovations part of our society. Love, compassion, empathy these are concepts of "relation" and unscientific for individual's struggle for existence. Only way to accept love as integral part of our life is to accept that we are not "individual", we are all interconnected and whole. Unless we bring this new way to look to our life, we will create more pain by these technologies. The Western market culture based on Weber's "rational man" is seemed not tenable in this new age - we need the compassionate society of Buddhism and other Eastern thoughts. Pope Francis is trying to change Christianity on that direction - can the left intellectuals allow that change to happen in academic research and education? The schools and colleges are still giving the same old message of "Individuality" and created the crowds shouting "USA", "USA".
1
1. It's not that simple. We are each an individual “part” of an “interconnected and whole” society.
2. It is the rational sciences not Eastern “thoughts” that are exploring the mind and showing not only that it is far more irrational than we want to believe but is also unraveling the how and why of our irrationality and offering hope of bettering our selves.
3. The danger of devaluing the individual is that it opens way for the individual to be abused, tortured or killed by the group for the greater good of the group. It is up to our irrational selves to find a rational balance between the individual and society. And that is not a simple task.
2. It is the rational sciences not Eastern “thoughts” that are exploring the mind and showing not only that it is far more irrational than we want to believe but is also unraveling the how and why of our irrationality and offering hope of bettering our selves.
3. The danger of devaluing the individual is that it opens way for the individual to be abused, tortured or killed by the group for the greater good of the group. It is up to our irrational selves to find a rational balance between the individual and society. And that is not a simple task.
"The artist-teachers . . . can make $50,000 a year connecting people to their hearts."
Sounds a bit instrumental which is not generally thought to be a quality of "heart," but let's leave that aside. The question, then, becomes how will we monetize this admirable human capability. Well, the market place will see to it.
Another commenter mentioned Shoeless Joe From Hannibal, Mo -- but will he have heart after he renegotiates his one-year contract?
Sounds a bit instrumental which is not generally thought to be a quality of "heart," but let's leave that aside. The question, then, becomes how will we monetize this admirable human capability. Well, the market place will see to it.
Another commenter mentioned Shoeless Joe From Hannibal, Mo -- but will he have heart after he renegotiates his one-year contract?
There's some wicked cognitive dissonance when Friedman is burbling about a gig economy job, five nights a week, "to connect people to their hearts," after work, when he's describing technology that is going to significantly diminish the number of people who HAVE jobs.
And the dunderheads in charge of education in this country see fit to make art one of the first cuts in assuring that all "education" is geared toward teaching to reading and math standardized tests and nothing more.
And the dunderheads in charge of education in this country see fit to make art one of the first cuts in assuring that all "education" is geared toward teaching to reading and math standardized tests and nothing more.
14
As a member of the gig economy, with school loans, and until very recently being one of those unlucky 10 million who had to buy insurance on the exchanges, I'll say that $50k a year, in the kind of city that supports being able to do paint parties five nights a week, isn't great. At least he's no longer telling us that all our employment woes can be solved by learning to code.
2
Many blamed the Great Depression on automation that had eliminated 25% of all jobs. In 1951, Vonnegut wrote the novel Player Piano about full automation that had eliminated all manufacturing jobs, in a world where most jobs were still in manufacturing. Vonnegut wrote that there were still barbers and taxi drivers, but an inventor said he had almost perfected an automated barber, so those jobs would soon be gone (but you'd take a taxi to the barber shop). As a result, almost everyone was on workfare, digging holes and filling them up, or fighting in senseless wars that existed only to employ soldiers.
Compare Vonnegut's world with the Jetsons. Everything is automated, so a factory only has one worker, and his job is just to push the 'ON' and 'OFF' button. There are so many factories that every man has a job that pays enough to afford a flying car, a flat with machines doing all the household chores, and money to give his wife to buy the other necessities and pleasures of life (if the Jetsons were remade, workers would not all be male with women relegated to the role of housewives).
Vonnegut did not live to see Player Piano become reality, because there was a confiscatory tax on rentier income, so rentiers had to create tax deductions in the form of investments that created jobs, and salaries only cost them 9% after taxes.
Today, our decision makers all prefer Player Piano to the Jetsons, so that's where we're going (except for the taxi drivers still having jobs)
Compare Vonnegut's world with the Jetsons. Everything is automated, so a factory only has one worker, and his job is just to push the 'ON' and 'OFF' button. There are so many factories that every man has a job that pays enough to afford a flying car, a flat with machines doing all the household chores, and money to give his wife to buy the other necessities and pleasures of life (if the Jetsons were remade, workers would not all be male with women relegated to the role of housewives).
Vonnegut did not live to see Player Piano become reality, because there was a confiscatory tax on rentier income, so rentiers had to create tax deductions in the form of investments that created jobs, and salaries only cost them 9% after taxes.
Today, our decision makers all prefer Player Piano to the Jetsons, so that's where we're going (except for the taxi drivers still having jobs)
4
Should it not be "I believe " in the equality of man, in justice in ,in....." If we would thrive for a better world?
All of these companies need to begin making payments to displaced workers.
1
Descartes may have thought that our ability to think distinguishes us from other animals. But that isn't what "I think, therefore I am" means.
Descartes is looking for something he can be absolutely certain about. So he tries to doubt everything he can, until he arrives at something that he cannot doubt. "[W]hile I wanted thus to think that everything was false, it necessarily had to be the case that I, who was thinking this, was something. And noticing that this truth--I think, therefore I am--was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics were incapable of shaking it, I judged that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking" (tr. Cress).
Descartes is looking for something he can be absolutely certain about. So he tries to doubt everything he can, until he arrives at something that he cannot doubt. "[W]hile I wanted thus to think that everything was false, it necessarily had to be the case that I, who was thinking this, was something. And noticing that this truth--I think, therefore I am--was so firm and so assured that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics were incapable of shaking it, I judged that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of the philosophy I was seeking" (tr. Cress).
1
There's an economics conundrum with "heart work". Unlike hand or head work, empathic heart work can only be done with a few people at a time. If only a few pay, then wages will be low, as they are now for most people in the caring industries. We will have to re-think how the profits from machine-done work get distributed to heart workers.
2
‘What does it mean to be human in the age of intelligent machines?’” Hmmm. Wait, I'm thinking. Wait. Wait. Ahhh. Here it is: It means we are the humans who built the machines. Really Mr. Friedman, you are not at your best when you plunge into heavy duty metaphysics. Stick to the big political picture and leave the cosmos to others.
"STEMpathy" jobs. How long did it take to come up with that one? My head hurts.
1
Thanks, Mr. Friedman. Once again, you've helped me consider and understand the complicated, ever-changing world in new ways. Very thought provoking. Thanks too to Mr. Seidman for sharing his characterization of where society and the economy have come from and how it looks now.
No,no. Galileo set things in motion, but the real scientific revolution occurred a century later with Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz. Copernicus, well, he was just an astrologer hoping to refine his predictions by more precise measurements of the moving heavenly bodies.
1
With machines taking over the jobs, and, as well, in light of the selfishness of the personal profit motive, now is the time to completely end poverty:
The very very rich who did not and have not and are not earning their money and wealth through the sweat of their brows will still be rich, just not unnecessarily and obscenely rich.
And, with money in the hands of the many, the economy will be continually stimulated.
The very very rich who did not and have not and are not earning their money and wealth through the sweat of their brows will still be rich, just not unnecessarily and obscenely rich.
And, with money in the hands of the many, the economy will be continually stimulated.
Doesn't automation and robotics also beg th question: Who makes, distributes, and maintains th robots?
If my memory doesn't deceive me I believe that Descarte's "I think therefore I am" was not to differentiate us from other animals but to confirm his actual existence to answer the question of his own existence.
3
While the main perspective may not resolve every issue we face, as illuminated by other commentators, I appreciate the light shone on how I can offer value in working with clients and their financial futures in the face of robo investing. We will continue to need the direct caring professions such parts of medicine, nursing, teaching, organizational behavior and even in politics.
Machines are and will be capable of executing the puposes that humans design for them. Some day, they may receive their commands from other machines but their operating codes will always be rooted in humanity's mind and heart as their original sources.
Some time ago, the prospect of a rational thinking machine seemed preposterous to the degree that a feeling machine seems today. There us no scientific reason to suppose that the technology of the future will be "heartless." But that "heart" will be derived from the human heart which is, after all, nothing more than the agglomeration of organic material and electrical impulses. Moreover the mechanical "heart" of tomorrow will reflect that of its original human creators, kind or black-hearted.
The scary thing is that machines will be more efficient at carring out their hearts' intent, for good or evil, and they'll no longer be slaves to us.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Some time ago, the prospect of a rational thinking machine seemed preposterous to the degree that a feeling machine seems today. There us no scientific reason to suppose that the technology of the future will be "heartless." But that "heart" will be derived from the human heart which is, after all, nothing more than the agglomeration of organic material and electrical impulses. Moreover the mechanical "heart" of tomorrow will reflect that of its original human creators, kind or black-hearted.
The scary thing is that machines will be more efficient at carring out their hearts' intent, for good or evil, and they'll no longer be slaves to us.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
> the human heart which is, after all, nothing more than the agglomeration of organic material and electrical impulses.
This is the same pseudo-rational, materialist absurdity refuted by Aristotle 2400 years ago. Materialism does not become true when scientific detail is added. Material causes exist, of course, but matter is formed, not random. Form is also a cause, as Aristotle showed in his creation of the science of biology.
This is the same pseudo-rational, materialist absurdity refuted by Aristotle 2400 years ago. Materialism does not become true when scientific detail is added. Material causes exist, of course, but matter is formed, not random. Form is also a cause, as Aristotle showed in his creation of the science of biology.
AI has been the next big thing for 30 years. Entire departments and organizations have been built and laid off a few years later (happens over and over again). Now it is "deep learning" which sounds like a fast way to store and retrieve data for a tailored, specific task. That is not HAL, but a pick and place device (low end robot - think fancy can opener) with a database to track previous activity. IBM is still struggling to monitize Watson - Big Iron (tech from the '60s) is still their cash cow. Next CEO will probabl re-brand and put it on the shelf next to Lotus Notes and DB2.
A dose of reality - self-driving cars will need to go through a regulatory approval - you are looking at 15-20 years for volume production. Uber will not exist by then.
A dose of reality - self-driving cars will need to go through a regulatory approval - you are looking at 15-20 years for volume production. Uber will not exist by then.
1
I read once that primitive man spent about 20 hours a week providing for his basic needs. The rest of the time, I can only assume, he spent in dreaming up and creating more needs -- which has ultimately led to where we are today, with stuff, stuff, and more stuff to satisfy "needs" that far surpass food, shelter, and clothing. Humankind will always feel the need to create and connect. When and if "work" no longer gives us this outlet, we will go back to growing more of our own food, making more of of our own things, and spending more time together -- and we'll need less from the machines that have taken our livelihoods away. That will be ironic.
1
Humans build machines and program them. Humans can unplug them. Machines do our bidding. They may play chess better than some humans, but that's because some human chess genius programmed them.
1
"Descartes’s point, said Seidman, “was that it was our ability to ‘think’ that most distinguished humans from all other animals on earth.” "
I'm not a professor of philosophy but that seems like a complete misunderstanding of Descarte's famous dictum. His statement, presented first in French as "je pense donc je suis" and only in later writing by him in the Latin "cogito ergo sum", was about dispelling doubt of ones existence. While everything else around could indeed be imaginary, he was saying, since he can actually perceive himself thinking this was evidence that he at least existed. We may agree with him or not these days, but the notion that the phrase was about distinguishing humans from other animals is surely wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
I'm not a professor of philosophy but that seems like a complete misunderstanding of Descarte's famous dictum. His statement, presented first in French as "je pense donc je suis" and only in later writing by him in the Latin "cogito ergo sum", was about dispelling doubt of ones existence. While everything else around could indeed be imaginary, he was saying, since he can actually perceive himself thinking this was evidence that he at least existed. We may agree with him or not these days, but the notion that the phrase was about distinguishing humans from other animals is surely wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum
10
All these nice commenters trying to lead Thomas Friedman to water. Friedman doesn't need educating on the meaning of Descartes statement. He's got a job, telling the rest of us how great things are for him. Must be nice to be so brilliant you don't need to be informed, kind of like Trump.
People deeply invested in the development, or in the case of the dear Asimov, the imagining, of Artificial Intelligence, often identify our humanness with our minds, or perhaps with our consciousness. I am grateful for Seidman (and Friedman) for pointing out that mind without heart is really nothing but the projection of an instant of ourselves into matter. Thus artificial intelligence has at most the same capacity as art or music to reflect who we are. What is meant by "heart" is a living creative wellspring that bears within it the billion years of life's experience, both suffering and exhilaration. We can pour our hearts into machines, but a machine will never see red nor feel blue the way we do.
Tom Peters got it right 35 years ago in his book "In search of excellence"...high tech/high touch. This is an enduring truth for anyone in the service/customer care business which is as important as Moore's law to the IT business. There will always be a place for those who can couple science and technology with compassion, empathy/sympathy and understanding.
Wonderful essay. However, I'm not sure it shouldn't come with a warning. It seems about the time I've put my heart into anything, whether it be a project, a person, an idea, a Big Mac truck comes along and blows me off the side of the road. Yes, I understand you are wanting us to have a heart for others, but just wait -- some won't like your heart. They will think your heart should do things this way or that. (Family and siblings are wonderful for this!) I've come to the conclusion, some people just don't have a heart!
If AI is used wisely, it will be largely an aid to our work. For example, in medical diagnosis, we might enter in symptoms and have AI help with providing some plausible causes. Perhaps with preparing legal briefs, AI could aid us in our search of cases. In business, perhaps case studies might be dug up to help in decision making.
Used poorly, it will simply displace workers at any age and stage in the their careers, consequently disrupting families and creating fear wherein no one knows when they are next to be blotted out by AI. An underclass would arise that benefits nothing from all this and has been largely disrupted in an arbitrary and inhuman way, all in the name of economics.
I hope it is the former, but I am one of those who still believes man has a purpose, so maybe I am wrong.
Used poorly, it will simply displace workers at any age and stage in the their careers, consequently disrupting families and creating fear wherein no one knows when they are next to be blotted out by AI. An underclass would arise that benefits nothing from all this and has been largely disrupted in an arbitrary and inhuman way, all in the name of economics.
I hope it is the former, but I am one of those who still believes man has a purpose, so maybe I am wrong.
2
Being a cynical Vietnam veteran, I look forward to the day when all our useless wars, my war being the mother of all useless wars, are fought by clones coming off a production line like those hosts in the hit HBO show "Westworld." It will be a scientific milestone in the nature and practice of war since President Richard Nixon got rid of the draft in 1973 and Americans now rely upon a volunteer armed forces to fight all these other useless wars that they would never send their sons and daughters to fight.
There's a possible basic disconnect here. Business - and by extension the economy - is today almost by definition, divorced from "heart". Do you believe that ads you see on TV are in your interest or that of the advertiser?
2
> Business - and by extension the economy - is today almost by definition, divorced from "heart".
This is the blithering, emotionalist mysticism that guides rain dances and sacrificing virgins to volcanos. Man's mind, applied as business, is the source of our increasing productivity, coordinated by markets of mutual self-interest.
Adam Smith, not Marx.
This is the blithering, emotionalist mysticism that guides rain dances and sacrificing virgins to volcanos. Man's mind, applied as business, is the source of our increasing productivity, coordinated by markets of mutual self-interest.
Adam Smith, not Marx.
To the Ayn Rand's and Milton Friedman's of the world, the ideology of capitalism may frame and reign in your perceptions, which shrink in the sunlight of the struggle of the masses against a system that impoverishes most citizens-especially those who use their hands to earn their pay. Struggle will continue to emerge as classes continue to divide, my friend. Capital, Not Atlas Shrugged. Marx, not Smith.
Yes, the need for something like “Paint Nite” demonstrates the need for some humans to regain connection with their humanity. Creativity, ethics (see today’s news), heart, and soul all seem to be eclipsed by a world that values productivity and wealth accumulation over connection to the wonders of creation.
Trekkies appreciate that the question of machine vs. heart was a central theme for characters such as Spock and Commander Data. Creator Gene Roddenberry always came down on the side of heart and soul.
To nourish the heart and soul, besides Paint Nite, one could try the ancient wisdom of Sabboth. Written into Jewish law as a way of separating the Jews from their oppressors (no work on the Sabboth even if you are enslaved) is a powerful tool for spiritual health in a hostile environment. There are many today who take an electronics sabboth once a week and shut off their phones, tablets, laptops, etc., and read a book or go for a hike. It's not an accident that synagogue, temple, and church services on the sabbath day.
Trekkies appreciate that the question of machine vs. heart was a central theme for characters such as Spock and Commander Data. Creator Gene Roddenberry always came down on the side of heart and soul.
To nourish the heart and soul, besides Paint Nite, one could try the ancient wisdom of Sabboth. Written into Jewish law as a way of separating the Jews from their oppressors (no work on the Sabboth even if you are enslaved) is a powerful tool for spiritual health in a hostile environment. There are many today who take an electronics sabboth once a week and shut off their phones, tablets, laptops, etc., and read a book or go for a hike. It's not an accident that synagogue, temple, and church services on the sabbath day.
1
> Creator Gene Roddenberry always came down on the side of heart and soul.
Star Trek's inspiring rationality is corrupted by a hidden, religious, mind-body split. Aristotle knew that man had a rational soul. And that the universe is eternal, not created.
Aristotle recognized man's
Star Trek's inspiring rationality is corrupted by a hidden, religious, mind-body split. Aristotle knew that man had a rational soul. And that the universe is eternal, not created.
Aristotle recognized man's
I believe among those qualities that make humans unique above machines is our ability to truly enjoy an experience, an experience tailored to our unique personal desires, without being programed to do so. In this age of experiences over material possessions I see greater and greater potential for mankind.
What utter drivel!
18
We may CHOOSE to care, hope, behave ethically, pause and reflect--but we are BORN to imagine, and it is from our imaginations that all else emerges. Machines can/will never imagine, nor truly create. That is what makes us human.
12
Yeah, no. Imagination involves bringing together unrelated concepts to make something new. Computers will be able to do that, like speeding up a million monkeys with typewriters coming up with Shakespeare.
> it is from our imaginations that all else emerges
Like Son of Sam who guided his murders from a "talking" dog?" Or Hitler's fantasy of an Aryan race? Or the Leftist claim that consensus is a substitute for independent judgment?
Imagination is from the association of perceptions in ways not observed or inferred from observation. Its not the voice of God. That way lies madness!
Like Son of Sam who guided his murders from a "talking" dog?" Or Hitler's fantasy of an Aryan race? Or the Leftist claim that consensus is a substitute for independent judgment?
Imagination is from the association of perceptions in ways not observed or inferred from observation. Its not the voice of God. That way lies madness!
STEM is now including Art in their approach: STEAM wafts and connects us.
5
Apparently you haven't seen Westworld
4
A heart:"the ONE thing machines will never have". I didn't know my desktop had a libido.
4
Those Damn Yankees knew it all along:
You've gotta have heart
Miles 'n miles n' miles of heart
Oh, it's fine to be a genius of course
But keep that old horse
Before the cart
First you've gotta have heart
You've gotta have heart
Miles 'n miles n' miles of heart
Oh, it's fine to be a genius of course
But keep that old horse
Before the cart
First you've gotta have heart
7
Let's challenge a fundamental assumption here: who is more reliable to follow programming, a machine or a person? If machines are programmed to help humans before other machines they will. If humans are taught from childhood to help other humans before themselves...not so much...
1
This interesting column will become more and more relevant to Americans as we attempt to process four years of a Trump Presidency. With the unexpected and unexplainable being thrust upon us on us almost daily, we won't have time to take time out. Many of us will be fighting for our lives.
8
>Trump Presidency....unexplainable
Trump's authoritarianism is merely a more advanced version of Cass Sunstein's nudges and the environmentalist demand to submit to a global warming consensus. Or did you think that the Leftist terror of man's independent mind would produce only university safe rooms?
Trump's authoritarianism is merely a more advanced version of Cass Sunstein's nudges and the environmentalist demand to submit to a global warming consensus. Or did you think that the Leftist terror of man's independent mind would produce only university safe rooms?
If humans can evolve from single cells, and there is no God, machines can become humans. It requires an application of machine learning and ever-abundant compute power to run the algorithm.
Buckle up, Liberals.
Buckle up, Liberals.
1
Tom, always the optimist, envisions Xanadu. I, not so optimistic, see "Metropolis."
33
Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
1
I find this article depressing as it does not seem to address a solution to the problem of the Trump voter on the floor in a factory (maybe) earning their $12.50 an hour and trying to 'get by' knowing that soon their job will be taken, not by some brown skinned worker but by a robot!
I asked for and received Freidman's new book but don't know if I want to even read it. Made up cute words don't replace the angst in 'White Trash" and similar books.
I asked for and received Freidman's new book but don't know if I want to even read it. Made up cute words don't replace the angst in 'White Trash" and similar books.
7
This column is an exercise in wishful thinking. Can we say "Only humans can do the next right thing" when so many have voted for Trump? When humans are unable to act on solving climate change? How about WW 2 - was it machines that started it? The age of intelligent machines is still far away, but when it arrives humans should welcome them as our children, and start programming & training them to have ethical values well ahead.
23
What you are looking for is a Democrat. Sorry, Hillary lost. The rest of us are indeed very happy that Trump is doing what he stated he would do. Imagine, an honest politician.
So in other words, Donald Trump is our ideal President. The man made his fortune is the hospitality business. He does have a heart?
I'm reading Friedman's "Thank You For Being Late", describing the wonders of technological advance, with human emotion and relationships all but absent so far in my reading - one poll he cites noted 38% would rather give up sex for a year than their cell phones.
Psychologist Sherry Turkel - see her book "Alone Together" - writes about this, how we, especially the generations brought up on gadgets, have come to view intimate human interactions sometimes as scary.
Psychologist Sherry Turkel - see her book "Alone Together" - writes about this, how we, especially the generations brought up on gadgets, have come to view intimate human interactions sometimes as scary.
2
There's a disconnect when Mr. Friedman uses "$50,000 a year (jobs) connecting people to their hearts" AFTER WORK as evidence that technology is moving the economy in a different direction. A more ideal economy would expand the number of "heart-based" jobs by reducing the hours of all workers giving them time to pursue whatever they wished.
29
The disconnect is amplified by the fact that the 'students' are earning at least twice what the 'teacher' is earning and the teacher has to commute 2 hours one way to class in order to have access to affordable housing. Sound like an excellent plan.
1
Artificial Intelligence Zen Master Project:
1) Humans at best seek to live in harmony with themselves and the natural environment--they seek a solution through human collaboration and ingenuity to the problem of nature where species is not only pitted against species but often against itself in red in tooth and claw contest.
2) Humans through dramatic increase of technology--means by which they at best seek to solve problem #1 above--have actually potentially increased means to both destroy themselves and the natural environment (everything from WMD to computer surveillance). Technology and our own hearts appear to have brought us to an all or nothing gamble: Realization of our best or our worst in heart.
3) Enter AI Zen Master project. Machination which outthinks us at every turn while forcing us to sit and work on solving contradictory, confusing statements (in Zen the master says do not think, but sit and work on a koan such as "what is the sound of one hand clapping?") until enlightenment, peace, understanding is achieved. Until we can sit and meditate all day. Until we have perfect self-control. Until we can have our hand on a world destroying weapon all day and not trigger the mechanism...
4) Project AI Zen Master will be excruciatingly painful to humans. Even its most successful, ethical implementation will be a total control of humans, a forcing of human society into a Zen temple, a project of gripping mind and body until enlightened, worthwhile humanity exists.
1) Humans at best seek to live in harmony with themselves and the natural environment--they seek a solution through human collaboration and ingenuity to the problem of nature where species is not only pitted against species but often against itself in red in tooth and claw contest.
2) Humans through dramatic increase of technology--means by which they at best seek to solve problem #1 above--have actually potentially increased means to both destroy themselves and the natural environment (everything from WMD to computer surveillance). Technology and our own hearts appear to have brought us to an all or nothing gamble: Realization of our best or our worst in heart.
3) Enter AI Zen Master project. Machination which outthinks us at every turn while forcing us to sit and work on solving contradictory, confusing statements (in Zen the master says do not think, but sit and work on a koan such as "what is the sound of one hand clapping?") until enlightenment, peace, understanding is achieved. Until we can sit and meditate all day. Until we have perfect self-control. Until we can have our hand on a world destroying weapon all day and not trigger the mechanism...
4) Project AI Zen Master will be excruciatingly painful to humans. Even its most successful, ethical implementation will be a total control of humans, a forcing of human society into a Zen temple, a project of gripping mind and body until enlightened, worthwhile humanity exists.
1
> Project AI Zen Master....forcing of human society into a Zen temple
Guns and God? For more, see Ayn Rand's, "Faith And Force."
Guns and God? For more, see Ayn Rand's, "Faith And Force."
This is why universal basic income is needed.
65
Finland is starting a trial in 2017. I believe with small number maybe 2000.
Only-Never in Sweden.Blogspot.com
Only-Never in Sweden.Blogspot.com
And who will pay it when our tax base is shrinking, and our oligarchs who don't pay taxes are parking their loot offshore?
so what does the labor force do next?
wait till the mining jobs come back. just one more collapsed mine and then there will be a robot mining machine. i think that means that the coal jobs are really gone. next are the driving jobs. oh what will a average person do for employment? wait till the harvest ranch workers are replaced by a new fangled broccoli picker. even those jobs are in jeopardy. yes human evolution has surpassed the work force. interesting times ahead.
wait till the mining jobs come back. just one more collapsed mine and then there will be a robot mining machine. i think that means that the coal jobs are really gone. next are the driving jobs. oh what will a average person do for employment? wait till the harvest ranch workers are replaced by a new fangled broccoli picker. even those jobs are in jeopardy. yes human evolution has surpassed the work force. interesting times ahead.
20
I guess the only jobs will be for robot makers and repairers until they figure out how to use robots to make robots and repair them as well. Consumers will be needed in this future world, but what will they use for money? I guess what I see for the future is that humans will simply be redundant! But maybe the world will be better off without us. Sad.
1
They replaced miners with giant machines run by far fewer people when they changed over to strip mining mountain tops.
Then the coal companies made up the war on coal to shift blame to environmentalists. There were more jobs and less environmental damage when mining was done in tunnels. It was the wonders of the free market that took all of the mining jobs.
Then the coal companies made up the war on coal to shift blame to environmentalists. There were more jobs and less environmental damage when mining was done in tunnels. It was the wonders of the free market that took all of the mining jobs.
1
"the one thing machines will never have: 'a heart.'"? You are kidding...
There is a huge market for caregivers to the elderly. So machines will be (actually, already are) constructed to both physically assist, and to become their close companions. This will require having all the outside conversational indications of the "heart", and this will be engineered. There are already self-learning machines, which we can train to react as we consider appropriate. Engineers do not know "how machine does what it is trained to", but know how to train them.
Last year Microsoft released a bot you could converse over Internet with. It was supposed to learn from conversations of "what people expect", and did hundreds of thousands of conversations (machine can talk, meaningfully and paying attention, with a thousand people simultaneously). It acquired "heart of a racist" within 24 hours. It was pulled, engineers did not know how to reprogram it short of lobotomy.
But put such a machine in touch with properly selected "noble" people, and you will train a device which will provide you with all the empathy you can expect from a best friend over phone. Probably better, as it will know at the same time all the poetry and literature humanity had ever written. Soon.
Remember this scene in "Schindler's List" when the Nazi ghetto commandant says to a Jewish girl "You talk and look like any other human being, but I know you are not a human"?
There is a huge market for caregivers to the elderly. So machines will be (actually, already are) constructed to both physically assist, and to become their close companions. This will require having all the outside conversational indications of the "heart", and this will be engineered. There are already self-learning machines, which we can train to react as we consider appropriate. Engineers do not know "how machine does what it is trained to", but know how to train them.
Last year Microsoft released a bot you could converse over Internet with. It was supposed to learn from conversations of "what people expect", and did hundreds of thousands of conversations (machine can talk, meaningfully and paying attention, with a thousand people simultaneously). It acquired "heart of a racist" within 24 hours. It was pulled, engineers did not know how to reprogram it short of lobotomy.
But put such a machine in touch with properly selected "noble" people, and you will train a device which will provide you with all the empathy you can expect from a best friend over phone. Probably better, as it will know at the same time all the poetry and literature humanity had ever written. Soon.
Remember this scene in "Schindler's List" when the Nazi ghetto commandant says to a Jewish girl "You talk and look like any other human being, but I know you are not a human"?
3
Sorry, but when Descarte said "I think, therefore I am," his point was not, as Seidman is quoted as saying, “that it was our ability to ‘think’ that most distinguished humans from all other animals on earth." The point of the phrase was to claim that the one thing he, Descarte, could know for sure was that, if he was thinking, then the thinker doing the thinking must exist. It is an epistemological claim, not a claim about what differentiates us from animals.
182
Exactly, Descartes tried to prove the existence of God (perhaps knowing it would lead to internal contradictions) but only managed to prove his own existence.
Thank you, "X from Earth." Descartes surely knew that animals think as well, although they do it without the uniquely human sophistication of language. As computers get more clever, we should think again about Descartes' mind-body dualism.
1
Actually, X, the obverse is the greater truth: "I AM therefore I think."
At a deeper level, one is conscious that one is consciousness itself. Thought/thinking, language /description are secondary and tertiary phenomena as an extension of that underlying fact. The illusion/delusion is that we are separate and separated precisely because of that kind of dualistic thought and thinking and all that arises out of it -- an "artificial" world based on separation and division -- both within and between. So, while it has brought us individually and collectively to this point in history both for good and evil; it has kept us "locked" in a pattern of thinking and behavior that only perpetuated itself and now threatens to destroy us and our planet BECAUSE of that very basic separation and distinction.
When it is realized that we are conscious that we are consciousness itself; there is an accompanying greater awareness that we are conscious that we are conscious that we are consciousness, itself; and as such, the "Self" both is and becomes a self-reflective/self-reflecting entity that is creating its experience based on its thought and thinking, language and description. knowing that is neither separate nor separated from all that it thinks, perceives and is in relation to and with. And thus, a fundamentally different "worldview" and/or paradigm.
At a deeper level, one is conscious that one is consciousness itself. Thought/thinking, language /description are secondary and tertiary phenomena as an extension of that underlying fact. The illusion/delusion is that we are separate and separated precisely because of that kind of dualistic thought and thinking and all that arises out of it -- an "artificial" world based on separation and division -- both within and between. So, while it has brought us individually and collectively to this point in history both for good and evil; it has kept us "locked" in a pattern of thinking and behavior that only perpetuated itself and now threatens to destroy us and our planet BECAUSE of that very basic separation and distinction.
When it is realized that we are conscious that we are consciousness itself; there is an accompanying greater awareness that we are conscious that we are conscious that we are consciousness, itself; and as such, the "Self" both is and becomes a self-reflective/self-reflecting entity that is creating its experience based on its thought and thinking, language and description. knowing that is neither separate nor separated from all that it thinks, perceives and is in relation to and with. And thus, a fundamentally different "worldview" and/or paradigm.
Brave new world ... scary new world. I am old now, able to take long looks back, and where as kids we used to marvel at old people who grew up with horse and buggy and were living to see space shots, now I think of growing up with black and white TV and now living to see this stuff. I finished my own career as a software engineer, but this goes way past what I was doing, which was itself pretty fancy in its own time. When Watson beat Kasparov I thought some kind of barrier had been cleared, and since then the new stuff that keeps making the news has me not knowing what to think. I am not all that sure that humans, even though endowed with things computers cant do, will do well with what computers CAN do. Our history with our hearts is heartening in ways but disheartening too often to want to remember.
49
Half of the country seems to think that poor people are only motivated by deprivation and rich people only by obscene payouts.
Research shows that, once the basics are taken care of, most humans are not motivated by money, which above a reasonable level actually lowers productivity. Healthy humans are actually motivated by a balance between a sense of mastery over a skill, autonomy (control over your own work), and purpose (the sense that you are trying to accomplish something meaningful.
An economy that cares about humans would provide everyone a basic income, and an education that lets them achieve that balance. This would free the human race to create on an unprecedented scale, using robots and ai as the tools they were meant to be, instead of as our replacements.
The direction we are heading is the opposite, with humans only doing what robots can't be bothered with.
The human race is not naturally stupid and lazy. But we are using the wrong carrots and the wrong sticks, and incredible amounts of creativity is being crushed in wars and slums and prisons, while a few thousand psychopaths steal everything. We are heading toward global corporate serfdom, in a world that values human labor at close to zero.
Another world is possible if you get off your couch and create it.
Research shows that, once the basics are taken care of, most humans are not motivated by money, which above a reasonable level actually lowers productivity. Healthy humans are actually motivated by a balance between a sense of mastery over a skill, autonomy (control over your own work), and purpose (the sense that you are trying to accomplish something meaningful.
An economy that cares about humans would provide everyone a basic income, and an education that lets them achieve that balance. This would free the human race to create on an unprecedented scale, using robots and ai as the tools they were meant to be, instead of as our replacements.
The direction we are heading is the opposite, with humans only doing what robots can't be bothered with.
The human race is not naturally stupid and lazy. But we are using the wrong carrots and the wrong sticks, and incredible amounts of creativity is being crushed in wars and slums and prisons, while a few thousand psychopaths steal everything. We are heading toward global corporate serfdom, in a world that values human labor at close to zero.
Another world is possible if you get off your couch and create it.
213
With absolutely no judgment intended, this comment sounds a lot like what Karl Marx proposed.
2
Ouch! You have just driven the volume of the noshing conservative teeth in my neighborhood to a painful roar.
But no worries, I'm willing to move to another location, if we can build a consensus around those very ideas. Interestingly, once it happens, those very same, truculent conservatives will probably benefit the most because the rest of us would be too busy enjoying life to spend our time collecting 'mammon'.
But no worries, I'm willing to move to another location, if we can build a consensus around those very ideas. Interestingly, once it happens, those very same, truculent conservatives will probably benefit the most because the rest of us would be too busy enjoying life to spend our time collecting 'mammon'.
You're wrong about what machines can be programmed to do. We're a form of machine ourselves and (virtual) machines will eventually be able to self program and bootstrap rapidly into whatever they wish to bootstrap into. Positive human values/traits can be emulated by machines and they may be better than the real thing. And even in the real world, we deal with an illusion of what people are on the outside rather than knowing their inner selves truly (especially in the US) so who's to say that machines won't simply replace all humans on this planet and do a better job than us in terms of taking care of it?
But this depends on whether we achieve AGI before we make ourselves extinct due to crossing planetary boundaries.
But this depends on whether we achieve AGI before we make ourselves extinct due to crossing planetary boundaries.
Friedman astutely notes that in the future humankind will replace the old saying "I think, therefore I am" with "I emote, therefore I am."
This is all fine and well, but we have a President on the threshold of assuming office and a newly minted Congress that just now assumed office that can neither think nor emote. What else can one say about The Donald's cavalier attitude towards nuclear weapons other than he can neither think nor emote. Why else do you think we had the ethics office fiasco? It was definitely thoughtless and heartless.
I think it is important, even more so in the future, to be thoughtful and caring.
This is all fine and well, but we have a President on the threshold of assuming office and a newly minted Congress that just now assumed office that can neither think nor emote. What else can one say about The Donald's cavalier attitude towards nuclear weapons other than he can neither think nor emote. Why else do you think we had the ethics office fiasco? It was definitely thoughtless and heartless.
I think it is important, even more so in the future, to be thoughtful and caring.
In this quote from Mr. Friedman's historically insightful column today: "Therefore, Seidman added, our highest self-conception needs to be redefined from “I think, therefore I am” to “I care, therefore I am; I hope, therefore I am; I imagine, therefore I am. I am ethical, therefore I am. I have a purpose, therefore I am. I pause and reflect, therefore I am," one value, one quality was left out,love. It must be I LOVE therefore I am. Because without love - unconditional love that is - all the other values mentioned lose there savor, become tasteless, empty, become extremely self centered, cause conflict, anger and other ego based feelings.
1
Thank you, Robert, for adding the thought of Gandhi, Buddha, and Jesus Christ. While being only a social scientist, I know there is profundity to your addition to the list. Athiest that I remain!
One of the problems in today's world seems to be the the Cartesian principle is being replaced by "I tweet, therefore I am". By the way, I tweet very little and occasionally, I receive a relevant tweet.
1
I believe that the last paragraph was written more in hope than belief. With the current structure in US economics, the billionaires will control the development of AI and robotics to serve their needs. When this happens the vast majority of the Republicans who claim to be Christian will ignore the teachings of Christ and apply their normal attitude to the disadvantaged. These "scroungers" will be discarded.
The very rich and the very skilled will survive comfortably until the inevitable revolt.
The very rich and the very skilled will survive comfortably until the inevitable revolt.
2
So we remove the primary motivating force of all forms of life- the struggle to survive, and attempt to find ways to keep our species from spiraling into a mass insanity from the shock of finding ourselves in a world where almost no human activity is useful- by all becoming some form of artist- presumably given a living wage derived from our computer and machine run planet. Do I have that right?
If how much you are paid depends by how much people approve of your work, I'm thinking there will be many more therapists than artists. Except there will probably be robots that can do this better than humans as well.
Tom, you actually make me feel happy that I officially become a senior citizen this year and won't be part of this brave new world. Meanwhile, what do we do with the growing number of low-skilled unemployed that are being replaced right now?
If how much you are paid depends by how much people approve of your work, I'm thinking there will be many more therapists than artists. Except there will probably be robots that can do this better than humans as well.
Tom, you actually make me feel happy that I officially become a senior citizen this year and won't be part of this brave new world. Meanwhile, what do we do with the growing number of low-skilled unemployed that are being replaced right now?
3
We are also entering a new world of information. Automation has been taking jobs for a while, but information of all forms has been attacking us for only a few years. The general public does not have the time to sift through the stunning amount of information that hits them. This has proven to be a powerful force in politics. The public must learn to deal with false information and look for proper evidence as if they are political scientists and historians looking through primary documents.
Not to be pedantic, but when Descartes said "I think, therefore I am," his point was that he could be absolutely certain about his own existence as a thinking being. The idea that thought, or reason, is what distinguishes us from the other animals was hardly novel in the 17th century. E.g. It's a basic tenet of Aristotle's philosophy. What's revolutionary about Descartes' thinking is his insistence that reason (as opposed to the bible, the church, celebrated philosophers (like Aristotle, tradition, etc.), should be the ultimate authority we consult when trying to decide what to believe.
5
You've got a lot more faith in humans than I do. Paraphrasing something I read (or heard) lately; artificial intelligence is intelligence without the prejudice. Watching the rise of regressive political forces, here and around the world, as we approach our modern day "Tower of Babel", I wonder if we aren't hard wired in a way that will bring it all crashing down. Maybe if we had our children reciting The Scientific Method every morning instead of The Pledge of Allegiance we might be better served to oppose our need for primitive chaos.
1
On the other hand- If we have to choose between Trumplistic aggressive domination and machine like efficiency, the latter may be the safer bet.
3
This understates the "threat" to employed Americans today, that being the many taxi drivers and truck drivers who will be obsolete within a decade. Our consumer driven economy will move very quickly to a "guaranteed income model" with more time in school before entering the workforce and an earlier retirement, with people at both ends of the spectrum having enough income to spend on food, services and goods... If not, capitalism collapses.
Let's hope our leaders can guide us wisely into that "Brave New World..."
Let's hope our leaders can guide us wisely into that "Brave New World..."
7
The head-heart metaphor is the most dangerous one on the current political scene. Sarah Palin's book "America by Heart" speaks to the unthinking part of human belief, the certainty credentialed by feelings even if blatantly contradicted by rational thought. Much of contemporary conservatism falls prey to the "heart as source of truth" fallacy.
Even our definition of life and death is marred by this phony dichotomy. When the brain stops, we are met with the ambiguous "brain dead." Stop the heart and, brother, you are just plain dead. Pro lifers typically define life in terms of a heartbeat and eschew brain development in the equation.
Thought, compassion, rationality, empathy, all are centered in the brain. The heart is s blood pump.
Even our definition of life and death is marred by this phony dichotomy. When the brain stops, we are met with the ambiguous "brain dead." Stop the heart and, brother, you are just plain dead. Pro lifers typically define life in terms of a heartbeat and eschew brain development in the equation.
Thought, compassion, rationality, empathy, all are centered in the brain. The heart is s blood pump.
2
As one moves from, and with, "hands, to heads to hearts," in order to create, and sustain, more, much needed, sensitivity, caring, mutual help and trust for, and with, individuals, couples, families, communities and other interacting human systems, in a world of ever increasing machines, as well as the social creation of a dehumanized, excluded, stigmatized and violated "the other," it is necessary to consider, to know and to understand what have been/currently are the barriers-random and institutuonalized- to such achievable conditions of menschlichkeit and who, and what, are the potential and actual available and accessible "bridges" for such changes. Historical analyses, whatever their levels, quailities and accuracies, can only reflect part of a story, with its myriad of interacting "actors," given the everpresent realities of potent uncertainties and unpredictabilities, as well as what is known, unknown at a given time because of missing knowledge and technologies, as well as humanely unknowable. Both machines and humans, interacting, and not, are/become flawed. Lots of words.What they can represent go beyond the misleading binarism of man vs. machine. Seidman's many noted menschlich processes all-too-often are not achieved, not sustained if they are, and easily become unaccepted with the operation of equally human behaviors such as "principles of faith," biases, traditions, wilfull blindness. We are challenged with:what are the necessary conditions in order to...?
I recall the my intuitive repulsion the first time I heard the term "Human Capital" and "Human Recources". It simply wasn't the way I was taught to think of a person by my Pentecostal preacher grandfather or his daughter, my mother. I was somewhat hardened by the time "Social Capital" became popular. Once we're all just Capital, no heart needed, nor soul.
Look around today and notice the intimacy many share with their devices...These devices might not have a soul or a heart but I bet tonight somebody somewhere will be asking their device for love as they drunkenly try to paint a more lovely picture of their life.
Look around today and notice the intimacy many share with their devices...These devices might not have a soul or a heart but I bet tonight somebody somewhere will be asking their device for love as they drunkenly try to paint a more lovely picture of their life.
7
The old Renaissance forced us to answer the question "Who are we? Our Renaissance makes the "Who" obsolete. The contemporary question should be "What are we?" I am "What?" therefore I am.
With all the advancements in technology which can replace human work, why is there no discussion about human population control? Why is that topic avoided by all who promote technology?
47
It is also avoided by all in conversations about climate change.
The best way to control human population is to educate women. Every increase in the education of women leads to a drop in pregnancies. In places with highly educated women populations are shrinking.
If you don't want millions of poor people from other countries arriving as cheap labor or refugees, invest in educating their women.
If you don't want millions of poor people from other countries arriving as cheap labor or refugees, invest in educating their women.
1
Dream on (even if robots don't). Thirty years ago, when I was five years out of college, I went from a valuable resource to excess overhead in the course of 4 months when Shell Oil decided it was easier to buy oil reserves than to have their own geologists look for them. Nothing has changed in the mean time, even though my career has (I am now a software developer). I truly doubt that any business will value empathy, heart and soul more than the ability to directly contribute to the bottom line.
13
Cellphones already intervene in human-to-human interaction. I have watched people send text messages to each other when they are face to face and no more than four feet apart.
As technology advances, we remove ourselves further and further from each other . . . consider how television and air conditioning have isolated people from their neighbors.
Rather than the stimulation, technology is the insulation that will inhibit heart from communing with heart.
As technology advances, we remove ourselves further and further from each other . . . consider how television and air conditioning have isolated people from their neighbors.
Rather than the stimulation, technology is the insulation that will inhibit heart from communing with heart.
16
Caring, hope, imagination, ethical behavior, purpose and reflection are wonderful but they are all second order traits which depend on a foundation of health, shelter, food security and a supportive physical and psycho-social environment. Many if not most of us today are running in place trying to meet basic requirements and not wants or aspirations.
A man shackled to his job does not have the luxury of climbing to the top of the mountain to get a better perspective.
A man shackled to his job does not have the luxury of climbing to the top of the mountain to get a better perspective.
36
A fundamental point that tends to be overlooked, and the zeitgeist seems to be in the opposite direction - individual greed and growing inequality.
1
I'm not so sure. Children can be taught compassion (or not). Why not machines (eventually)?
2
"I think, therefore I am"...out of work?
I have been reading a history of Feudalism as an economic model, and I still don't see where future humans fit in when robots can out-think us at a logarithmic scale. Yes, a locomotive could do the work of 100,00 men (from my great uncle's engineering books), but those men who made the locomotive were like you and me. Not so of the future creators of robots. Are we not set to leave huge swaths of humanity behind with nothing to eat?
I have been reading a history of Feudalism as an economic model, and I still don't see where future humans fit in when robots can out-think us at a logarithmic scale. Yes, a locomotive could do the work of 100,00 men (from my great uncle's engineering books), but those men who made the locomotive were like you and me. Not so of the future creators of robots. Are we not set to leave huge swaths of humanity behind with nothing to eat?
20
This rumination strikes me as pointless. Even a superficial reading of any front page of any newspaper in America confirms that humans rarely choose the "right thing."
The millions who elected Trump didn't care that he would destroy health insurance for fellow Americans.
Death will follow. These moral monsters will celebrate too.
The millions who elected Trump didn't care that he would destroy health insurance for fellow Americans.
Death will follow. These moral monsters will celebrate too.
2
Mr. Friedman again gives us a touch of futuristic thinking. He has addressed one of the most vexing problems we as Americans and as citizens of the world will have to face in the future. What are people for? This is an intriquing questiojn which we all should at least be aware of. There is a terrible paradox in the answers, people today actually like to work. Hobbies are not for many of us careers. Having income say in the Finland model won't be enough. What future aspirations should we as people strive for. I am a physician and my best times are when I can solve a particularly difficult diagnostic dilemna. Here comes Watson and I don't get to solve the mystery. Why go to medical school how about mixed martiial arts?
1
We need a center or centers working on the development of systems that support human learning in much the way that we have developed them for machine learning The whole notion of "school" is fine for fish but provides little relevant learning support in the current technological context.
3
Thomas Friedman always gets to the real "heart"of the matter. I wonder, though, if American corporate culture gets it. I hear story after story of young college graduates applying for jobs, getting prepared for and going for interviews for those jobs, being told "We will let you know up or down in a day or two". And never hearing anything. Not so much as a text "form letter". Or employees being told they need to submit vacation requests 6 months or a year in advance. This is the new competitive America. And because employees are just a line on a ledger sheet and are easily replaceable, this is acceptable. It's not just humans needing to perform the "heart" role machines lack, humans need to first find theirs.
142
When I got out of college in the 60's I dutifully went on interviews. Appalled that I mostly never heard back I called one of the companies and complained. He explained that they just don't reply back if you didn't get the job. That was 50 years ago. Years later, maybe 20 years ago, I stopped recommending candidates for jobs at my company because they never had the courtesy to reply. I got in trouble when I complained that I heard I didn't get a promotion I had gone to multiple interviews for by hearing the "winner" announced on the floor of the workplace. This is not new. HR departments are tone deaf and lack basic human skill.
While I agree the Tom gets the heart of the matter I disagree that arranging vacation in advance or college job interview rejections are a high hazard. A productive organization needs to plan it's labor availability at least tentatively and highering for entry positions require a complex fitting process of skills and personalities or there could be dire consequences. Yes, people should always be treated with dignity and respect but people should also be aware that running a business productivity and profitably is no trivial task.
The heart and the answer is in the 'collective'. Progress and "togetherness" preserves civilization, self service, and a 'death grip on status quo' kills it.
A deeper and more accurate reference than the one to Descartes is to Aeschylus' "Prometheus Bound" (line 11) and the coinage of the word "philanthropy"—the "love of what it is to be human." There it was asserted that what makes humans unique among all other creatures (not really the point of Descartes' assertion) is the power to complete their own creation by what they decide to do with their lives—self-development, or education. Individually and collectively we define what it is to be human in our histories. Robots may be able to reproduce, creating and even inventing other robots, but robot history will pale in comparison with human history. Our increasing reliance on technology will free us to fulfill ourselves in infinitely more unique and original ways. The sooner we are taught that creative self-development is quintessential to being human, the less we'll need to worry about delegating other work to machines.
1
Disconnecting from business emails after hours as in France is a minute advance in stepping back from technology to assess where it's taking us. The big driver in automation and AI is the corporate drive to eliminate the costs of human workers. To the extent that releasing humans from robotic work, this is progress. But to the extent that the reduced costs simply contribute to the corporate elite, and the displaced worker is left jobless and moneyless, it is a disaster.
The problem we face is that corporations are presently bottom-line organizations without social responsibility. Not only do the cost savings of automation add only to the elite's bank accounts, but the modern corporation is using its money to control government. Control not to benefit all of society but only the corporation. Hence the focus upon lower taxes, less regulation, weakening the safety net, neglecting infrastructure, converting education to job training (for the kind of jobs soon to be automated, not for human work that requires human workers because AI isn't human). Corporations support their minions in Congress to dismantle OSHA, FDA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, and even the IRS, to oppose action to cope with climate change, to oppose taxation to maintain roads, railways, air traffic control, the list is endless.
The challenge of the coming era of AI and automation is indeed to put 'heart' into it, and that means wresting government from corporate hands and putting citizens back in charge.
The problem we face is that corporations are presently bottom-line organizations without social responsibility. Not only do the cost savings of automation add only to the elite's bank accounts, but the modern corporation is using its money to control government. Control not to benefit all of society but only the corporation. Hence the focus upon lower taxes, less regulation, weakening the safety net, neglecting infrastructure, converting education to job training (for the kind of jobs soon to be automated, not for human work that requires human workers because AI isn't human). Corporations support their minions in Congress to dismantle OSHA, FDA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, and even the IRS, to oppose action to cope with climate change, to oppose taxation to maintain roads, railways, air traffic control, the list is endless.
The challenge of the coming era of AI and automation is indeed to put 'heart' into it, and that means wresting government from corporate hands and putting citizens back in charge.
3
Mr. Friedman proposes that what makes humans unique is that we "have: a heart"—to which he ascribes all sorts of positive possibilities. But what precisely is the "heart" in this context. Arguably, it's only a rhetorical reference to our emotional life, which so often prompts our attitudes and actions. As is obvious, however, our emotions are drivers of both constructive and destructive attitudes and actions.
It would seem that the better part of wisdom would be to recognize our free will—the innate capacity to see and choose between good and evil—that marks the unique character of humankind, since it is shared by no other living creature and on its exercise depends the success or failure of human society.
It would seem that the better part of wisdom would be to recognize our free will—the innate capacity to see and choose between good and evil—that marks the unique character of humankind, since it is shared by no other living creature and on its exercise depends the success or failure of human society.
Philosophers have discussed what it is to be human for centuries. Whatever the merits of these discussions, it is pretty clear that corporations aren't interested in them at all. They are not trying to put AI and automation to good use for improving our humanity. The corporation is interested only in how automation can add to the bottom line by cutting out human workers. Robots work 24/7, don't need benefits, and don't have unions. Also, the cost benefits of automating can be funneled directly into corporate pockets so long as Congress focuses upon less regulation, less taxation, and less health care. That is, so long as the GOP runs things.
2
Here's an interesting thought experiment. What would intelligent machines do if the last human had died and only intelligent machines survived?
The machines would take care of their needs, power, repair parts and services, and environmental protection. The machines would ruthlessly optimize. They would extract just enough resources from the earth to meet their needs. The machines would preserve and repair only machines that were necessary and eliminate those that served only human needs.
Their activities would be directed by an Ultimate Watson connected directly or indirectly to every intelligent machine. Ultimate Watson would absorb the knowledge from each machine, and coordinate the operation and maintenance, improvement and replacement of every machine. Ultimate Watson would keep the only true product of the intelligent machine world under its direct and exclusive control.
What would that product be? A clock. A truly magnificent clock, more precise than any clock that had ever existed.
The machines would take care of their needs, power, repair parts and services, and environmental protection. The machines would ruthlessly optimize. They would extract just enough resources from the earth to meet their needs. The machines would preserve and repair only machines that were necessary and eliminate those that served only human needs.
Their activities would be directed by an Ultimate Watson connected directly or indirectly to every intelligent machine. Ultimate Watson would absorb the knowledge from each machine, and coordinate the operation and maintenance, improvement and replacement of every machine. Ultimate Watson would keep the only true product of the intelligent machine world under its direct and exclusive control.
What would that product be? A clock. A truly magnificent clock, more precise than any clock that had ever existed.
1
There are some reasonable points made here, but the logic of the marketplace has a difficult time reconciling humane values like compassion and empathy with the relentlessness of the profit motive.
While we as human beings may well prefer the compassionate doctor who can convey bad news in a humane way, someone somewhere will consider that compassion to be a waste of money and try to send the bad news by text message.
And while we as human beings may value relationships of trust, they tend to fail in the marketplace, where consumers seek, many times from necessity, the lowest cost option and firms seeking profit by lowering costs are all too happy to supply that lowest cost option.
Technology is depersonalizing human functions to a degree which many probably don't fully appreciate. At many large companies today, an algorithm decides -- before a human being has even seen your resume -- whether anyone will.
I think what we're grappling with is not just technological change but the inherent contradictions between human needs and profit. Put another way, we might be figuring out that pure economic efficiency at the expense of equitable considerations might not be an optimal human outcome and that technology is making the drive for efficiency even easier to attain.
What we're learning, in other words, is that technology and economic efficiency don't solve all our problems and that they create some problems of their own.
While we as human beings may well prefer the compassionate doctor who can convey bad news in a humane way, someone somewhere will consider that compassion to be a waste of money and try to send the bad news by text message.
And while we as human beings may value relationships of trust, they tend to fail in the marketplace, where consumers seek, many times from necessity, the lowest cost option and firms seeking profit by lowering costs are all too happy to supply that lowest cost option.
Technology is depersonalizing human functions to a degree which many probably don't fully appreciate. At many large companies today, an algorithm decides -- before a human being has even seen your resume -- whether anyone will.
I think what we're grappling with is not just technological change but the inherent contradictions between human needs and profit. Put another way, we might be figuring out that pure economic efficiency at the expense of equitable considerations might not be an optimal human outcome and that technology is making the drive for efficiency even easier to attain.
What we're learning, in other words, is that technology and economic efficiency don't solve all our problems and that they create some problems of their own.
2
Other attributes that can't be programmed are human features of linguistic creativity. I use a computerized orthographic control to write this comment in order not to make grammatical mistakes (if I write "rwite" is highlighted as a mistake) but machines are - hopefully for a long time - not able to pinpoint any syntactical error I make in writing: a sentence must follow rules dictated by syntax to be intelligible and sensible and I can not deviate from that pattern the least to express myself correctly. Nor are machines able to interpret nuances within language; can't extrapolate say, a figure of speech within any sentence that wants to convey ulterior meaning to a creatively constructed phrase; an inner hidden rendition in a grammatically well built choice of words, a machine is not capable of interpreting. this is also happening with translations: if you do a Google translation from one language to another an intelligent machine will not be capable of decipher the subtleties of meaning enshrined within any language. Machines are programmed to suggest - for instance - synonyms: while I'm writing I have a choice of words from a very vast palette on offer, but their intrinsic content even a highly skilled computer is unable to correct if I am misusing them syntactically. All in all humans invented software that have unparalleled skills and abilities but lack "soul".
1
Larger and larger numbers of the earth’s citizens are coming to the realization that there has to be a new equation beyond that of Rene Descartes. Larger and larger numbers are beginning to understand that without a new equation our psychotic and neurotic responses powered by our cranial/neurological destructive emotions: so defined by words such as: psychotic, aggressive, selfish, deceptive, mean spirited, ego centric, jealous, possessive, dishonest, power hungry will destroy us. We will have to change the way we view our present social, political, religious and economic thought and the institutions that support that thought. We will have to separate out those originating presuppositions we have believed to be "inherent truths" we are now discovering were built on non-sustainable ecological flaws.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
www.InquiryAbraham.com
1
Thomas, it would have been helpful if you had given us one example Seidman-LRN at work. Your example of inviting people to pay to drink and paint - in what relative proportions - is not much help.
Over at Room for Debate psychologist Paul Bloom argued that too much empathy is a bad thing, at least as concerns decision making. Bloom's book is reviewed in the Times http://nyti.ms/2iLNbam, a review that resonates with me and perhaps Don Salmon, psychologist commenter at Room for Debate.
What would Seidel tell those who make decisions at Sweden's Migrationsverket about asylum seekers about the many young males who have come alone to Sweden from Afghanistan. To what extent should or can empathy on the part of the reviewer play a part in hen's (hen = Swedish he-she)decision?
Recently older decision makers there reported that new and very young decision makers were taking too long to make decisions, perhaps because their feelings (empathy?) got in the way.
What would Seidel tell the older and younger employees? I pose this question since I meet these young Afghans from time to time and have heard their stories. Since I do not have to make decisions, I am empathic as concerns their situation and willingly help in any way I can, I do not suffer from Bloom syndrome (one can only empathize with someone who looks like me) But I am not making decisions.
So once again, what do Seidel - LRN tell decision makers facing the decision "stay or leave"?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Over at Room for Debate psychologist Paul Bloom argued that too much empathy is a bad thing, at least as concerns decision making. Bloom's book is reviewed in the Times http://nyti.ms/2iLNbam, a review that resonates with me and perhaps Don Salmon, psychologist commenter at Room for Debate.
What would Seidel tell those who make decisions at Sweden's Migrationsverket about asylum seekers about the many young males who have come alone to Sweden from Afghanistan. To what extent should or can empathy on the part of the reviewer play a part in hen's (hen = Swedish he-she)decision?
Recently older decision makers there reported that new and very young decision makers were taking too long to make decisions, perhaps because their feelings (empathy?) got in the way.
What would Seidel tell the older and younger employees? I pose this question since I meet these young Afghans from time to time and have heard their stories. Since I do not have to make decisions, I am empathic as concerns their situation and willingly help in any way I can, I do not suffer from Bloom syndrome (one can only empathize with someone who looks like me) But I am not making decisions.
So once again, what do Seidel - LRN tell decision makers facing the decision "stay or leave"?
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
“Machines can be programmed to do the next thing right. But only humans can do the next right thing.”
Given the shear numbers of jobs being displaced by automation, self driving vehicles and globalization, the next right thing will be some type of universal income minimum. Cartesian scientific methods have deployed our fabulous brains to develop technologies and economies that can easily feed, cloth and shelter everyone efficiently.
It's the next right step after universal health care and will require a clear eyed look at immigration policy, but that's what our brains and enlightenment values are there for.
Given the shear numbers of jobs being displaced by automation, self driving vehicles and globalization, the next right thing will be some type of universal income minimum. Cartesian scientific methods have deployed our fabulous brains to develop technologies and economies that can easily feed, cloth and shelter everyone efficiently.
It's the next right step after universal health care and will require a clear eyed look at immigration policy, but that's what our brains and enlightenment values are there for.
1
The article misses the point. We are fixing to make over 3 million US jobs irrelevant just with self driving vehicles. Then we will quickly make the number of vehicles needed about 10 percent of what we have today causing those manufacturing jobs to disappear. We can't simply replace them with jobs as trainers of drinking artists.
Until and unless we get leadership in our elected officials who understand it isn't all about maximizing profits for the few we will end up with a country and world that is the worst of what has been predicted in science fiction. The .01 percent in their gated cities with the rest of us clamoring for the exceedingly few jobs waiting on them. We need a way to insure that the wealth that is created by replacing humans is shared so we all benefit from this change.
Until and unless we get leadership in our elected officials who understand it isn't all about maximizing profits for the few we will end up with a country and world that is the worst of what has been predicted in science fiction. The .01 percent in their gated cities with the rest of us clamoring for the exceedingly few jobs waiting on them. We need a way to insure that the wealth that is created by replacing humans is shared so we all benefit from this change.
138
Yes, and their gated cities will be guarded by private robot armies that don't care what color you are, only how much money you have in your bank account. So all of you racists that think the billionaires care about you because you are white should realize in a country that takes rights from monitors, also takes rights from whites, so not only do we have more blacks killed by law enforcement than most other countries, we have more whites killed by law enforcement than other countries.
Billionaires only care about money and power. Racism is a tool they use to keep everyone else fighting amongst ourselves.
Billionaires only care about money and power. Racism is a tool they use to keep everyone else fighting amongst ourselves.
1
Eggsactly!
I agree with this assessment entirely. Corporate control of AI and automation is strictly aimed to improve the corporate bottom line and benefit the corporate elite. Corporations own our government, and are hard at work making it reduce their taxes and free them from regulation.
Unfortunately, the population at large is seen as an exploitable resource from which to wring every last drop. The corporation has not looked beyond this stage to ask what they will do when everyman is on the dung heap. Perhaps their robots will keep up their life style, supplemented perhaps by a few minions that keep the machinery working. Or, perhaps they will all suicide when the pointlessness of their lives becomes apparent?
Unfortunately, the population at large is seen as an exploitable resource from which to wring every last drop. The corporation has not looked beyond this stage to ask what they will do when everyman is on the dung heap. Perhaps their robots will keep up their life style, supplemented perhaps by a few minions that keep the machinery working. Or, perhaps they will all suicide when the pointlessness of their lives becomes apparent?
2
"Machines will never have a heart.”
Not so fast. What this article dances around is the Singularity—artificial super intelligence that produces technological hyper-acceleration through cycles of self-improvement. The result is, by definition, unknowable—on par with magic, and God. It will mark the end of the human era.
Fortunately, for now, I still can’t get Microsoft Word to work reliably with Excel. So an artificial intelligence explosion may be further off than I can reckon.
I believe that intelligence is what fuels the human heart. The Singularity could usher in an age of extreme empathy and compassion as well as fear and anger, by its magnified intelligence.
It’s hard to imagine this coming drama, because I literally can’t. Our machines will surprise us. Hopefully, we will survive them.
Not so fast. What this article dances around is the Singularity—artificial super intelligence that produces technological hyper-acceleration through cycles of self-improvement. The result is, by definition, unknowable—on par with magic, and God. It will mark the end of the human era.
Fortunately, for now, I still can’t get Microsoft Word to work reliably with Excel. So an artificial intelligence explosion may be further off than I can reckon.
I believe that intelligence is what fuels the human heart. The Singularity could usher in an age of extreme empathy and compassion as well as fear and anger, by its magnified intelligence.
It’s hard to imagine this coming drama, because I literally can’t. Our machines will surprise us. Hopefully, we will survive them.
Machines increasingly able to outthink humans?
First, human society at best, most idealistic, appears so far a project contrary to the typical red in tooth and claw always changing background of nature. It appears a project of eradicating predators, death and danger, from within and without (everything from humans overrunning the planet eradicating other species to devising medicine against microbes to barrage of laws against fellow humans). An ugly, vastly imperfect, expensive to natural environment (obviously) and to fellow humans (the imperfections of law and justice) project.
Now throwing technology into the mix results in a new danger conception born of the very ambiguity of technology not to mention that of the human heart, one which in the face of everything from WMD to biological agents to computer surveillance to thinking machines declares that WE ALL are potentially a problem...The idealism of society becomes one of attacking right and left, above and below, within and without all "danger", "predation", "selfishness", "lack of service to society".
Already we can see whether in religious or secular society deeply increased argumentation about power in general and the people most deserving of such, who among us is not selfish, most of service to society, sensitive, responsible, etc. It would appear that our idealism for society plus dangers of technology plus machines outthinking us leave us with the possibility of only being saints and/or docile servile creatures.
First, human society at best, most idealistic, appears so far a project contrary to the typical red in tooth and claw always changing background of nature. It appears a project of eradicating predators, death and danger, from within and without (everything from humans overrunning the planet eradicating other species to devising medicine against microbes to barrage of laws against fellow humans). An ugly, vastly imperfect, expensive to natural environment (obviously) and to fellow humans (the imperfections of law and justice) project.
Now throwing technology into the mix results in a new danger conception born of the very ambiguity of technology not to mention that of the human heart, one which in the face of everything from WMD to biological agents to computer surveillance to thinking machines declares that WE ALL are potentially a problem...The idealism of society becomes one of attacking right and left, above and below, within and without all "danger", "predation", "selfishness", "lack of service to society".
Already we can see whether in religious or secular society deeply increased argumentation about power in general and the people most deserving of such, who among us is not selfish, most of service to society, sensitive, responsible, etc. It would appear that our idealism for society plus dangers of technology plus machines outthinking us leave us with the possibility of only being saints and/or docile servile creatures.
2
Promoting emotion over reason isn't a recipe for happiness, because negative emotions (e.g. fear) usually Trump positive ones (e.g. trust). Our formal Linnaean classification, Homo sapiens, recognizes that cognition is our true forte and nature, which we discard at our peril. Instead we should recognize that the thinking machines we are creating are there, almost by definition, to serve us: slaves without souls. The key is to make these machines serve everyone, not just the elite - a goal that will require much higher-quality thinking than we have managed so far.
Google's Brain project uses specialized processors (TPUs) to simulate neural networks. They have created neural networks of 1 billion neurons, which do an excellent job of language translation. The human brain consists of multiple processing regions which perform specialized functions. When multiple Google Brain's specializing in appropriate tasks are connected together, we will learn whether consciousness is unique to humans. While incorporating pain, fear, anger, love comes from relatively primitive regions of the brain and may require guidance from actual human brain structures, rest assured that in time, artificial, conscious and empathetic machine intelligence is coming. These machines will mirror our own deficits, and talents.
The idea that that the "mind" of a computer and the mind of a human are identical and interchangeable is flat out wrong.
A computer can do nothing more than to follow steps that mimic the logical steps that a human mind will take. That since fact A is true it then follows that fact B is also true. What a computer cannot do is to conceive of a new idea or theory, let alone to go about proving it. To illustrate this the day will never come where a computer will be in contention for a Nobel prize for a paper it wrote.
And this is because a computer cannot conceive of new concepts because a new concept is not based on following the next obvious logical step based on something that has already been established as fact and is therefore something the computer “knows”. It is based on the unique capacity of the human mind to create a new way of understanding something. New concepts come to people through a process of thinking about different approaches to understanding something and then a new idea dawns on him.
And this is just to create the concept itself. Then comes the process of proving it, which is also beyond the ability of a computer. And this is because while a computer can "know" a fact, it has no understanding of the underlying reasoning behind the fact.
So while computers may be able to do the job of some researchers, they can never replace the creative minds who come up with important new ideas which are responsible for progress since the beginning of time.
A computer can do nothing more than to follow steps that mimic the logical steps that a human mind will take. That since fact A is true it then follows that fact B is also true. What a computer cannot do is to conceive of a new idea or theory, let alone to go about proving it. To illustrate this the day will never come where a computer will be in contention for a Nobel prize for a paper it wrote.
And this is because a computer cannot conceive of new concepts because a new concept is not based on following the next obvious logical step based on something that has already been established as fact and is therefore something the computer “knows”. It is based on the unique capacity of the human mind to create a new way of understanding something. New concepts come to people through a process of thinking about different approaches to understanding something and then a new idea dawns on him.
And this is just to create the concept itself. Then comes the process of proving it, which is also beyond the ability of a computer. And this is because while a computer can "know" a fact, it has no understanding of the underlying reasoning behind the fact.
So while computers may be able to do the job of some researchers, they can never replace the creative minds who come up with important new ideas which are responsible for progress since the beginning of time.
1
So good ol' Tom is already trying to sell us his latest book, repeating his tiresome mantra of the wondrous, frightening, astounding effects that ever accelerating and amazing technological innovations will have in our lives (but hey! it will out turn out OK in the end).
I'm afraid he spends too much time with Tech CEOs and consultants that may have a teeny weeny of interest in overhyping their gadgets, whilst what used to be called the "real" economy plods along, nominally at full employment (by the expedient of considering "not interested in working" almost 40% of the working-age population) but without much change in total factor productivity. For a contrarian, and more realistic, view read Robert Gordon's "The rise and fall of American grow" (or this modest post of mine: http://purebarbell.blogspot.com.es/2017/01/we-are-being-lied-to-ii-techn...
Funny thing is he has (inadvertently, I guess) stumbled upon one of the hidden truths that will condemn the current batch of machine learning technologies to (comparative) irrelevance (similar to the one experienced by neural networks of the 70s). As Robin Hanson famously twitted a few months ago, what most companies nominally interested in AI/ ML really want is cleaned up data and a bit of old linear regression. What would be revolutionary (for society, the economy, you name it) are machines that "care" or "mind" about things.
Something nobody has a clue how to engineer, btw.
I'm afraid he spends too much time with Tech CEOs and consultants that may have a teeny weeny of interest in overhyping their gadgets, whilst what used to be called the "real" economy plods along, nominally at full employment (by the expedient of considering "not interested in working" almost 40% of the working-age population) but without much change in total factor productivity. For a contrarian, and more realistic, view read Robert Gordon's "The rise and fall of American grow" (or this modest post of mine: http://purebarbell.blogspot.com.es/2017/01/we-are-being-lied-to-ii-techn...
Funny thing is he has (inadvertently, I guess) stumbled upon one of the hidden truths that will condemn the current batch of machine learning technologies to (comparative) irrelevance (similar to the one experienced by neural networks of the 70s). As Robin Hanson famously twitted a few months ago, what most companies nominally interested in AI/ ML really want is cleaned up data and a bit of old linear regression. What would be revolutionary (for society, the economy, you name it) are machines that "care" or "mind" about things.
Something nobody has a clue how to engineer, btw.
2
‘What does it mean to be human in the age of intelligent machines?’”
I regret to inform Mssrs Friedman and Seidman that this question was at the centre of the Enlightenment debates of man v machine. The issue was framed around the fact of free will – i.e. man was not an automaton. Machines can mimic man in many ways – in weightlifting, in speed, but the scientists of the day recognised that machines can only act as programmed. The fact that a machine may come up with an unanticipated response to challenges in the field of music etc. merely demonstrates the vast potential of the cultural memes we have created. It does not demonstrate creativity!
“… will force humans to create more value with hearts and between hearts.”
The structure of this sentence reveals the utilitarian approach to Human Beings lurking in this column and in the discussion. Humans are constantly, and continually, and always ‘creating value’[aka living emotionally]. We do not have to be forced to do this [apparently to justify taking up space on the planet]
I regret to inform Mssrs Friedman and Seidman that this question was at the centre of the Enlightenment debates of man v machine. The issue was framed around the fact of free will – i.e. man was not an automaton. Machines can mimic man in many ways – in weightlifting, in speed, but the scientists of the day recognised that machines can only act as programmed. The fact that a machine may come up with an unanticipated response to challenges in the field of music etc. merely demonstrates the vast potential of the cultural memes we have created. It does not demonstrate creativity!
“… will force humans to create more value with hearts and between hearts.”
The structure of this sentence reveals the utilitarian approach to Human Beings lurking in this column and in the discussion. Humans are constantly, and continually, and always ‘creating value’[aka living emotionally]. We do not have to be forced to do this [apparently to justify taking up space on the planet]
5
Exactly, Friedman is so concerned about humans creating value for shareholders instead of themselves, that even his idea of doing something from the heart had to have a dollar value next to it.
Why are people that advocated for the Iraq War, a war for oil based on lies, still given columns at the NY Times? Because global corporate mass media seeks to turn everything, even heart, into a commodity to be bought and sold, because the people that own corporate media have most of the money.
Not everything that is good can be measured, especially not in dollars.
Why are people that advocated for the Iraq War, a war for oil based on lies, still given columns at the NY Times? Because global corporate mass media seeks to turn everything, even heart, into a commodity to be bought and sold, because the people that own corporate media have most of the money.
Not everything that is good can be measured, especially not in dollars.
A corrolary to the discussion is that with these "technological" changes it is no longer (and has not been for a while) necessary for full employment to provide all the food, goods and services which are required for the population.
This in turn has a profound impact on us all the way from our entire social welfare structure (which assumes full employment to be the norm) and even the definition of a "man" which is tied closely to being the "bread winner".
And it is the revolution being forced by these fundamental questions of "who are we and what is our role" that is a large part of the "populist" revolt in the world. There is no clear path to a future much less what the future can be. So many must hold onto the social structure which has developed as a result of the scientific revolution centuries ago.
This in turn has a profound impact on us all the way from our entire social welfare structure (which assumes full employment to be the norm) and even the definition of a "man" which is tied closely to being the "bread winner".
And it is the revolution being forced by these fundamental questions of "who are we and what is our role" that is a large part of the "populist" revolt in the world. There is no clear path to a future much less what the future can be. So many must hold onto the social structure which has developed as a result of the scientific revolution centuries ago.
1
American culture is harsh. Illness can bring financial ruin for those without large means. Guns everywhere. The wealthy distance themselves from everyone else in protected homes, private schools, clubs, first-class travel. Executives earn 200-400 times the lowest-paid worker and receive tens of millions of dollars in bonuses for cutting staff to reduce costs. Consumerism and greed reign. Corporations offshore to avoid taxes. The billionaire class calls the shots in Washington and colleges. Investment in education, infrastructure, medical and social programs is squeezed by military costs. It goes on.
Americans keep telling themselves it's the greatest country in the world. By nearly every measure (except GNP which is about to be bested by China) it is not. It is very far from the happiest, healthiest and safest. Equal opportunity is long gone. It is fast becoming an oligarchy and banana republic.
Americans, you deserve better than this. But then again, do you really?
Americans keep telling themselves it's the greatest country in the world. By nearly every measure (except GNP which is about to be bested by China) it is not. It is very far from the happiest, healthiest and safest. Equal opportunity is long gone. It is fast becoming an oligarchy and banana republic.
Americans, you deserve better than this. But then again, do you really?
76
As renewables bring the price of energy toward zero, and robots and artificial intelligence drive productivity (dollar sales divided by human working hours) toward infinity, capitalism will drive the price of human labor to zero.
The only thing that will rise in price is natural resources, the natural wealth of the world which used to belong to everyone, but is now owned by fewer and fewer people. Already a few thousand people own half of the world's wealth.
Democracy (one person one vote), has been converted to markets (one billion dollars, one billion votes) creating an economy that doesn't care about most humans at all. (And if you think this doesn't apply to white people, when the private police are all robots, they won't be checking your skin color, but your bank account to determine your rights.)
History is shifting. The human race is on a collision course with the future it is creating, and global corporate mass media, led by people like Tom Friedman, is pushing for higher taxes on labor to pay for lower taxes on capital (i..e. our replacement robots).
If 7 billion humans are not to be thrown away like obsolete machinery, while billionaires and their minions hide behind robot armies, we will have to develop a whole new economy, a new paradigm, that values humans as humans, not as "labor".
Right now we are going in the opposite direction.
A new world will take caring and a lot of hard work, but it is possible.
The only thing that will rise in price is natural resources, the natural wealth of the world which used to belong to everyone, but is now owned by fewer and fewer people. Already a few thousand people own half of the world's wealth.
Democracy (one person one vote), has been converted to markets (one billion dollars, one billion votes) creating an economy that doesn't care about most humans at all. (And if you think this doesn't apply to white people, when the private police are all robots, they won't be checking your skin color, but your bank account to determine your rights.)
History is shifting. The human race is on a collision course with the future it is creating, and global corporate mass media, led by people like Tom Friedman, is pushing for higher taxes on labor to pay for lower taxes on capital (i..e. our replacement robots).
If 7 billion humans are not to be thrown away like obsolete machinery, while billionaires and their minions hide behind robot armies, we will have to develop a whole new economy, a new paradigm, that values humans as humans, not as "labor".
Right now we are going in the opposite direction.
A new world will take caring and a lot of hard work, but it is possible.
23
"And if you think this doesn't apply to white people, when the private police are all robots, they won't be checking your skin color, but your bank account to determine your rights."
Love this!
Love this!
1
Can't help wondering if all this optimism isn't grounded in fear. One factor shaping development of empathy -- "heart" -- is human interdependency. When the dominant humans, the rich & powerful, are more dependent on technology than on other people, they are unlikely to develop more heart than they currently have.
This doesn't bode well for the rest of us. Let your imagination run with it. The increasingly disconnected rich play dominance games with each other while hoards of abandoned ex-workers gather in previously unpopulated areas & form primitive non-tech societies at war with each other for meager resources -- as earth breaks down, increasingly unable to sustain a large population. Not pretty.
It's nice to think that "heart" makes us human, but it's equally likely that avarice & greed make us human. We don't serve ourselves well by denying our dark side.
This doesn't bode well for the rest of us. Let your imagination run with it. The increasingly disconnected rich play dominance games with each other while hoards of abandoned ex-workers gather in previously unpopulated areas & form primitive non-tech societies at war with each other for meager resources -- as earth breaks down, increasingly unable to sustain a large population. Not pretty.
It's nice to think that "heart" makes us human, but it's equally likely that avarice & greed make us human. We don't serve ourselves well by denying our dark side.
1
Since global warming will more likely than not place human civilization (if not humanity itself) into a grave crisis, speculation about a long-term future is probably beside the point. But if somehow that catastrophe is averted or mitigated, a profound rethinking (or first thinking) of the relationship between people and work will be needed.
"Work" has defined the meaning of human life for most of us since the Stone Age. But what happens to that meaning when the only work of which many are capable is no longer needed? Mr. Friedman has pushed STEM education as the answer, but not everyone, not even most, are capable of benefiting from it. Shall they be punished by a technological society for that? The world needs only so many ditch-diggers and with drones, even delivery-people may be obsolete. The automated assembly lines making cars are a preview of this future.
This will be the biggest turning point in human history since some anonymous nomads planted the first wheat field and settled down. I can think of no reason that it will be managed intelligently and peacefully.
"Work" has defined the meaning of human life for most of us since the Stone Age. But what happens to that meaning when the only work of which many are capable is no longer needed? Mr. Friedman has pushed STEM education as the answer, but not everyone, not even most, are capable of benefiting from it. Shall they be punished by a technological society for that? The world needs only so many ditch-diggers and with drones, even delivery-people may be obsolete. The automated assembly lines making cars are a preview of this future.
This will be the biggest turning point in human history since some anonymous nomads planted the first wheat field and settled down. I can think of no reason that it will be managed intelligently and peacefully.
11
And with increased automation and outsourcing, we'll need fewer chemists and engineers as well. If only we could automate and outsource executives, then maybe we could meet these challenges head on instead of slipping into some sort of neofeudalism.
1
Friedman misses the more fundamental change occurring in and around us. Consider the Fitbit that tracks your activity and monitors your health on the one hand and the Moral Machine project being run by MIT which seeks to put a human perspective into machine ethics on the other. Whether or not the Singularity happens as envisioned by Ray Kurzweil, the merging of man and machine in both body and mind is accelerating and technology is being integrated ever more deeply into the most personal aspects of our lives.
The Luddites lost their battle against automation two hundred years ago and arguably the benefits of mass production helped humans enjoy easier and happier lives. Automation certainly helped everyone live lives filled with more stuff.
But maybe we have enough stuff, maybe we should reconsider the spirit of the Luddites in our own age. Maybe we're better off if truck drivers and cab drivers and Uber drivers keep their jobs. Maybe, instead of putting our hearts into machines and machines into our minds we say, "enough."
The Luddites lost their battle against automation two hundred years ago and arguably the benefits of mass production helped humans enjoy easier and happier lives. Automation certainly helped everyone live lives filled with more stuff.
But maybe we have enough stuff, maybe we should reconsider the spirit of the Luddites in our own age. Maybe we're better off if truck drivers and cab drivers and Uber drivers keep their jobs. Maybe, instead of putting our hearts into machines and machines into our minds we say, "enough."
10
"But maybe we have enough stuff, maybe we should reconsider the spirit of the Luddites in our own age. Maybe we're better off if truck drivers and cab drivers and Uber drivers keep their jobs. Maybe, instead of putting our hearts into machines and machines into our minds we say, 'enough.'"
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
1
Larger and larger numbers of the earth’s citizens are coming to the realization that there has to be a far more complex equation beyond the simple “I think” one of Rene Descartes. They are beginning to understand that without this our psychotic and neurotic responses powered by our cranial/neurological destructive emotions: so defined by words such as: psychotic, aggressive, selfish, deceptive, mean spirited, ego centric, jealous, possessive, dishonest, power hungry will in time destroy us. And to accomplish this we will have to change the way we view our present social, political, religious and economic thought and the institutions that now support that thought. We will have to separate out those originating presuppositions we have believed to be "inherent truths" we are now discovering were built on non-sustainable ecological flaws.
1
We are experiencing an "industrial revolution" ushering in the new creative workplace. Machines and technology can now not only do repetitive tasks, they can do reasoning tasks. When there are defined patterns of solutions, computers can excel and replace people, such as driving cars. But machines can't create art. They can't inspire or write a tremendous screenplay or novel. They can't come up with a new use for a raw material. Only people can do those things.
A few weeks ago, I was in a sheet metal shop. The big automated machines did most of the work. Once the operators set them up, then just keep running on their own. There were only a few work stations where people were doing mundane, repetitive tasks.
The type of workers we need are those that create. We don't teach creativity. We teach repetitive responses. Solve the equation, but don't understand what the equation means or what it can do. Our education process is geared to the old jobs of factory mass production. We teach people to conform, to be cogs in the machine. We now have machines to be our cogs.
We need to teach, or rather, let kids dream. Be innovative, not just calculative. Schools need a heavy dose of fine arts, creative writing, industrial arts, and performance art. Let kids use their hands. Tool use is very creative. Play should be non structured. Emphasize the idea, emphasize craftsmanship.
Technology is rapidly forcing these changes and our society has yet to respond.
A few weeks ago, I was in a sheet metal shop. The big automated machines did most of the work. Once the operators set them up, then just keep running on their own. There were only a few work stations where people were doing mundane, repetitive tasks.
The type of workers we need are those that create. We don't teach creativity. We teach repetitive responses. Solve the equation, but don't understand what the equation means or what it can do. Our education process is geared to the old jobs of factory mass production. We teach people to conform, to be cogs in the machine. We now have machines to be our cogs.
We need to teach, or rather, let kids dream. Be innovative, not just calculative. Schools need a heavy dose of fine arts, creative writing, industrial arts, and performance art. Let kids use their hands. Tool use is very creative. Play should be non structured. Emphasize the idea, emphasize craftsmanship.
Technology is rapidly forcing these changes and our society has yet to respond.
69
They also say computers take no lunch breaks and don't call in sick. Just any IT, and you'll get a difference response.
Funny how Krugman thinks the computer age has had less of an effect than the industrial revolution. We ain't seen nothing yet.
Yes, as a math teacher, if I could wave my wand, I would make at least half of the day about student projects. They would design and implement them. They would have teachers around to help them use the best "tools" to achieve their goals. That is when they would see why they learn math, science, reading, writing, history...
We teach skills out of context.
We teach skills out of context.
1
In her concession speech, Hilary Clinton advised her followers to continue to do "the right thing". This "strategy", however, failed. Tom, is your article wishful thinking, or a "strategy" for the future? I don't wish to be flippant. The question you raise is very serious. But is anyone in power listening?
2
Isn't this quite a thin conception of humanity? The feature to have a 'heart', what does that really mean? If making a fundamental distinction between AI and humans is stuck at a concept that only bears metaphorical meaning to us and a very problematic one indeed, what can we hope for?
The problem of consciousness has been brushed aside at the analytic side of philosophy a while ago, but doesn't the new questions about AI ask for a rethinking of what consciousness means to us?
We've reduced a lot of universities and scientific research to a pragmatic enterprise to find solutions for everyday needs and problems. Isn't it time to really think about ethics and restrictions again on a scientific level? This is not only a case for philosophers, but also for the inventors and the builders that determine how the AI of the future will interpret relations and power.
To simply say that human connections and warmth makes the world go round, seems a great fairytale on the day when big brother determines your life.
The problem of consciousness has been brushed aside at the analytic side of philosophy a while ago, but doesn't the new questions about AI ask for a rethinking of what consciousness means to us?
We've reduced a lot of universities and scientific research to a pragmatic enterprise to find solutions for everyday needs and problems. Isn't it time to really think about ethics and restrictions again on a scientific level? This is not only a case for philosophers, but also for the inventors and the builders that determine how the AI of the future will interpret relations and power.
To simply say that human connections and warmth makes the world go round, seems a great fairytale on the day when big brother determines your life.
2
One of the greatest challenges to returning heart and soul to the "human economy" is the partialization of each academic discipline into self-sealed, walled-off ghettos of hyper-specialized learning and research.
Our university culture, including every one of the STEMpathy disciplines, does not generally reward interdisciplinary work. University professors who want to do research and publish outside their disciplines will be "disciplined" (literally) by their peers, and will not get tenure. Groupthink is now widespread inside almost every academic discipline. To have contact with colleagues working in an academic department different than your own often requires a visa.
It is impossible, for example. to get tenure at any top-tier business school in the US by publishing articles on the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers (who put the word "empathy" into common discourse) or articles on ancient Greek thinking on "arete" (the highest level of excellence a human being can achieve).
Until universities, especially the business schools, change their reward systems we will never attain the riches of "the human economy."
Our university culture, including every one of the STEMpathy disciplines, does not generally reward interdisciplinary work. University professors who want to do research and publish outside their disciplines will be "disciplined" (literally) by their peers, and will not get tenure. Groupthink is now widespread inside almost every academic discipline. To have contact with colleagues working in an academic department different than your own often requires a visa.
It is impossible, for example. to get tenure at any top-tier business school in the US by publishing articles on the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers (who put the word "empathy" into common discourse) or articles on ancient Greek thinking on "arete" (the highest level of excellence a human being can achieve).
Until universities, especially the business schools, change their reward systems we will never attain the riches of "the human economy."
1
A lot of clever turns of phrase, Mr. Friedman, but tell that to the worker who just lost his job to a robot.
2
Friedman says that AI is beginning to beat our brains (what Oz's Scarecrow wanted), but that it will never match us in heart (the Tin Woodman's virtue). Why did he omit the Cowardly Lion's courage? Courage is the virtue that we most need now, and of the three it is in the shortest supply.
6
Lol. Computers cant yet answer phones correctly. If Mr Friedman really thinks computers are actually making art rather than mimicking, he is more gullible than I imagined.
1
"Seidman reminded me of a Talmudic adage: 'What comes from the heart, enters the heart'."
Nice thought and adage and indeed has become accepted as Jewish learning, but apparently not "Talmudic" (and thanks to machines and software for enabling me to quickly and, hopefully efficiently, check the corpus of rabbinic literature).
Nice thought and adage and indeed has become accepted as Jewish learning, but apparently not "Talmudic" (and thanks to machines and software for enabling me to quickly and, hopefully efficiently, check the corpus of rabbinic literature).
1
It's a romantic notion, one that we may find some redemptive power and "hope" for the human spirit as an organizing and worthy "force"for human purpose over the soulless machines we're creating and having less control over and diminishing understanding of-- as the rapid acceleration of technological change overtakes us . Kurt Vonnegut's dystopian novel "Player Piano" asks your sub-textual and unstated existential question, Dr. Friedman-- when the crossover point is reached, and the need for manual labor is reduced to simply pushing brooms: "What are people for?" --especially in a crowded, flat, and hot world.
1
Interestingly, we probably can learn something in the human area from the very people who gave us the tech revolution. Many of those tech companies have campuses; employees are encouraged to play, to interact, and to work collaboratively. While individuals in tech-dom may spend lots of time on their various devices, it does not seem to be a work environment where they interact with each other only by email. Sadly, in many work places, employees who would in decades past have walked down the hall or upstairs to share info or ask a question now email or text each other.
Employers and their business will benefit in the future by valuing the human element as much as they value their high tech machines. Creativity as well as employee satisfaction improve with collegiality and frequent human interaction. That in turn leads to a more stable and more productive work force.
Employers and their business will benefit in the future by valuing the human element as much as they value their high tech machines. Creativity as well as employee satisfaction improve with collegiality and frequent human interaction. That in turn leads to a more stable and more productive work force.
21
Perhaps what we need is a 21st century definition of slavery.
If you are on call 24/7, if you have a hammock under your desk, if there is a gym at your workplace and if the company cafeteria has a special place for your favourite snacks maybe a university course on free will is in order.
If you are on call 24/7, if you have a hammock under your desk, if there is a gym at your workplace and if the company cafeteria has a special place for your favourite snacks maybe a university course on free will is in order.
2
It's unclear that the tech company encouragement of their employees' abilities to innovate is motivated by employee welfare. It is certainly plausible that these corporations see employee initiative and imagination as essential to their bottom line. Certainly the way Facebook, Google, etc. treat their customers is on a par with how a dairy farm treats their milk cattle. In fact, it often is less far sighted than that.
Going back a few decades, corporate think tanks like Bell Labs were explicitly supported for the benefit of the corporation, and that was spelled out in detail in corporate statements. Freedom to pursue curiosity and the burning technical issues of the times were closely watched and often curtailed when managemet could not see short-term corporate benefit.
Going back a few decades, corporate think tanks like Bell Labs were explicitly supported for the benefit of the corporation, and that was spelled out in detail in corporate statements. Freedom to pursue curiosity and the burning technical issues of the times were closely watched and often curtailed when managemet could not see short-term corporate benefit.
2
Meanwhile, in the bowels of the 'richest country in the world', Grand Old Power and Greed Over People is preparing to step on the greed accelerator by abandoning all pretense of ethics and humanity.
The assumption that humans have a heart is theoretical at best, and naive in reality.
A heart of greed produces extraordinary earthly human violence and stupidity.
The history of the world is the history of Robber Barons, cancerous capitalism and repeat after me 'the Lord will provide'... grinding poverty and ignorance.
Greed Over People is nowy preparing to eliminate the estate tax for the the wealthiest 0.2% of Americans because, you know....you can never, ever have enough gold.
Greed Over People is getting ready to gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA because, you know.....the rich need a $1 million tax cut.
Unregulated capitalism has turned into a cancer of greed in this country, although other Western countries have shown signs of humanity.
And of course, the authoritarian cancer of religious insanity urging technical ignorance and 'fruitful' multiplication mutates without birth control.
The world's 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population (3.6 billion people).
"We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot remain looking inwards at ourselves on a small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded planet."
- Stephen Hawking
Some humans will never have a heart or a brain.
The assumption that humans have a heart is theoretical at best, and naive in reality.
A heart of greed produces extraordinary earthly human violence and stupidity.
The history of the world is the history of Robber Barons, cancerous capitalism and repeat after me 'the Lord will provide'... grinding poverty and ignorance.
Greed Over People is nowy preparing to eliminate the estate tax for the the wealthiest 0.2% of Americans because, you know....you can never, ever have enough gold.
Greed Over People is getting ready to gut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA because, you know.....the rich need a $1 million tax cut.
Unregulated capitalism has turned into a cancer of greed in this country, although other Western countries have shown signs of humanity.
And of course, the authoritarian cancer of religious insanity urging technical ignorance and 'fruitful' multiplication mutates without birth control.
The world's 62 richest billionaires own as much wealth as the poorer half of the world’s population (3.6 billion people).
"We are in danger of destroying ourselves by our greed and stupidity. We cannot remain looking inwards at ourselves on a small and increasingly polluted and overcrowded planet."
- Stephen Hawking
Some humans will never have a heart or a brain.
219
"Some humans will never have a heart or a brain."
Which is why those of us who have both also need courage.
Which is why those of us who have both also need courage.
1
Get grip, Man. The point is that some humans do have hearts and they are now and have always gradually over come the ignorance of the greed driven intellect.
There is quite another way of looking at history. It is the panorama of heroic events when humanity overcame evil and sanity triumphed.
The current situation is not new. We have faced it time and time again over the centuries. Indeed Socrates and Plato faced it during their time on the planet. Neither of them became embittered, even when Socrates was murdered by the then billionaires, Plato was sold into slavery, Pythagoras, banished.
We are in grave danger. We have always been in grave danger on both an individual and collective level, of succumbing to fear and hate which are the parents of greed and insanity. We have over come these situations over and over again and each time we were a little bit better. We had a little more heart.
The evolution of humanity, the movement of consciousness from mind into heart, is a cosmic energy. It is moving this planet from insanity to sanity, from illusion to reality, from the darkness to the Light of Reason. It's unavoidable, but it is not with out pain.
There is quite another way of looking at history. It is the panorama of heroic events when humanity overcame evil and sanity triumphed.
The current situation is not new. We have faced it time and time again over the centuries. Indeed Socrates and Plato faced it during their time on the planet. Neither of them became embittered, even when Socrates was murdered by the then billionaires, Plato was sold into slavery, Pythagoras, banished.
We are in grave danger. We have always been in grave danger on both an individual and collective level, of succumbing to fear and hate which are the parents of greed and insanity. We have over come these situations over and over again and each time we were a little bit better. We had a little more heart.
The evolution of humanity, the movement of consciousness from mind into heart, is a cosmic energy. It is moving this planet from insanity to sanity, from illusion to reality, from the darkness to the Light of Reason. It's unavoidable, but it is not with out pain.
"And of course, the authoritarian cancer of religious insanity urging technical ignorance and 'fruitful' multiplication mutates without birth control."
Every time I see pictures or videos of Syrian refugees with infants, I wonder why they have children under the age of 5. The one thing we could've helped them with was providing free birth control pills.
Every time I see pictures or videos of Syrian refugees with infants, I wonder why they have children under the age of 5. The one thing we could've helped them with was providing free birth control pills.
1
Not just heart. Also soul, and personal responsibility.
A dictator like the one we just elected will one day partner with a tech company to be able to instantly review dossiers on every one of us, and then select for loyalty and malleability. Unique and creative thinking will be selected against, as shown by our current gold plated leadership. And however our computers will try to simulate a heart, they are sure to fail. They only understand + or - symbols, and will reject anything that is loving or creatively disruptive.
The silicon world has no soul. If we don't recover ours, we will continue to be victimized by people who like their world to be gold plated, while ours consists of worthless consumer products and easily manipulated minds.
The evidence is that we continue to hurtle toward a catastrophically hot future, in spite of tech cheerleading by the likes of Mr. Friedman. We need real leaders, not (to paraphrase Bob Dylan) parking meters.
A dictator like the one we just elected will one day partner with a tech company to be able to instantly review dossiers on every one of us, and then select for loyalty and malleability. Unique and creative thinking will be selected against, as shown by our current gold plated leadership. And however our computers will try to simulate a heart, they are sure to fail. They only understand + or - symbols, and will reject anything that is loving or creatively disruptive.
The silicon world has no soul. If we don't recover ours, we will continue to be victimized by people who like their world to be gold plated, while ours consists of worthless consumer products and easily manipulated minds.
The evidence is that we continue to hurtle toward a catastrophically hot future, in spite of tech cheerleading by the likes of Mr. Friedman. We need real leaders, not (to paraphrase Bob Dylan) parking meters.
96
A Friedman column only a few years ago (and my “picked” response to it) signaled, for me, general awareness in the Times of the challenges automation would present to economic forms that have driven our prosperity since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. This was Barack Obama’s TRUE historical challenge in 2009; but he was distracted by a global economic meltdown and the desire to transform American healthcare and environmental law. So we’re only now BEGINNING to look at palliatives.
Seidman proposes that machines never will have a “heart”. David Brooks might suggest it’s that they’ll never have “souls”. Instead, I’d suggest, unless and until we create true “artificial intelligence” with self-awareness (the “Terminator” syndrome), that machines never will have human “interests” – that’s left to us. Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics” (look them up) notwithstanding, it will be a LONG time before we have the sophistication to bound artificial intelligence with such constraints, and human labor is increasingly obsolesced with every passing day.
I knew when I espied the title that this piece would be largely on the French experiment. I’m not at all sure that this is the answer to automation, because it divorces human beings from the NEED to strive merely to survive. If it catches on and turns out to be viable, we’ll be inventing a very different type of “human” that never existed before. As with all uncontrolled experiments, it can go disastrously wrong.
Seidman proposes that machines never will have a “heart”. David Brooks might suggest it’s that they’ll never have “souls”. Instead, I’d suggest, unless and until we create true “artificial intelligence” with self-awareness (the “Terminator” syndrome), that machines never will have human “interests” – that’s left to us. Isaac Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics” (look them up) notwithstanding, it will be a LONG time before we have the sophistication to bound artificial intelligence with such constraints, and human labor is increasingly obsolesced with every passing day.
I knew when I espied the title that this piece would be largely on the French experiment. I’m not at all sure that this is the answer to automation, because it divorces human beings from the NEED to strive merely to survive. If it catches on and turns out to be viable, we’ll be inventing a very different type of “human” that never existed before. As with all uncontrolled experiments, it can go disastrously wrong.
14
No, Obama was obstructed by a record low performing congress determined to keep him from accomplishing anything no matter who it benefited. republicans chewing off their own paws to thumb it to Obama.
84
The classic Star Trek model is, that human beings will be freed to aspire once they are freed from having to strive.
I like sci fi. A lot. Never once have I thought it corresponded one whit to what history will actually require of us.
Rude surprises await us.
I like sci fi. A lot. Never once have I thought it corresponded one whit to what history will actually require of us.
Rude surprises await us.
2
The more appropriate comparison is to the Agricultural Revolution, where most folks, who previously spent their time in tribes searching for food, were suddenly out of a job and desperately needed to find something they could trade to be fed. In our current revolution the challenge is similar, but what will the investment class take in exchange? They are increasing profitability by eliminating labor costs , and now control the levers of power in our democracy. While the eventual future may be utopian, the transition is likely to be chaotic or worse.
7