I don't have a well-formed theory here and I'm not putting forth an argument for or against any particular position. Furthermore, I have no empirical evidence to back up some of the assumptions I've made below, though I'm sure the information is out there on the various topics, and others can correct me or fill in the blanks as they see fit. Finally, I make no claims to be a political scientist, economist, or researcher in artificial intelligence, or to have any special knowledge or expertise in any of those areas. All of that said, this nebulous topic has been imprecisely gnawing at me for a few years now and I recently read a story (linked below) that spurred my posting this thread for open discussion:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d2c2f12-99e9-11e4-93c1-00144feabdc0.html
Here's the dilemma as I see it:
The world, whether one likes it or not, is a supply and demand world. That is, though some societies operate closer to the big government/communal-sharing model while others operate closer to the small government/every-man-for-himself model, on the whole, the world is a capitalist one to a lesser or greater degree, both at the individual level and at the international level, driven by what individuals and nations need and can supply relative to what other individuals and nations need and can supply. Whether one likes it or not, IMO, 99% of the human race is dependent on some form of supply and demand exchange, even if that dependency is indirect, via a government welfare system (that government has to raise capital somehow. For instance, half the world's consumable goods are supplied by socialist China to meet the world's demand - quite an impressively capitalist economic engine for a socialist society).
No matter the product, when you follow the supply chain back to its root, inevitably you get to labor. I suppose one could argue that the supply chain should be extended past labor to food and water, since without workers' physical sustenance, there is no labor. Though I haven't read a great deal of Marx, I would guess this line of thought is what the early Marxists were referring to when they spoke of the "means of production" and what led them to concentrate so fervently on labor, specifically agricultural labor (control of the most basic root supply: food). Whether it's labor or food/water, one of them has to be considered the most basic supply in a world that (like it or not) revolves around supply and demand. At least that's been the paradigm for the history of humanity until relatively recently.
Enter mass production and the advent of robotics in manufacturing several decades ago. Undoubtedly, many manufacturing jobs vanished from the demand side of the supply/demand equation as more and more manual jobs were replaced by robotic automation. It could be that factoring in population growth, demand on the whole increased at a pace that offset that job-loss. That is, though some jobs were lost to automation, more jobs were created in areas that couldn't yet be automated. In any event, the advancements in robotics weren't an enormous threat to supply-side labor, as it only affected a relatively small segment of the workforce, the automotive industry, for example. The vast majority of other jobs - jobs in the service industry, sales, healthcare, law, and a myriad of other areas that require some degree of situational flexibility and human intelligence remained untouched. All along though, many felt that the day was coming when advancements in artificial intelligence would slowly supplant some of those skills as well. But that day was theoretical and seemingly distant, science-fiction distant, star wars distant.
Well, here we are in 2015. By many accounts, we as a race are on the verge of creating artificial intelligence equal to and exceeding that of human beings. Computational algorithms with the sophistication and speed to match and exceed our highest expectations for their human counterparts in areas previously deemed off-limits. Algorithms that are conversationally indistinguishable from humans. Medical diagnosis, prescription and treatment. Many wide-ranging fields are thought to be vulnerable to supplantation by AI that will be available in the very near future. It goes without saying, startup costs will be high, but for those industries which undergo a similar transition to artificial intelligence as that which the automobile industry saw with automated robotics, exponential gains in efficiency will more than make it worthwhile. I see no reason to doubt that eventually, almost every industry will undergo at least some degree of transition to artificial intelligence.
So what happens to the supply and demand equation when that occurs, when the most basic supply that almost all people possess and upon which we all depend (human labor) is made obsolete? We suddenly have an enormous global supply of unoccupied labor in almost every field, for which there is plummeting demand. I don't think it's a reach to say that under that scenario, there are billions of people all over the world who no longer have a marketable skill with which to barter for the most basic necessities of life. And if the world deems it important to make such a transition smoothly and without undue suffering, there needs to be some kind of global paradigm shift away from the traditional supply and demand model.
Don't be mistaken - I am not suggesting that capitalism is bad or that the world necessarily needs to adopt a more socialist or Marxist economic model. There are plenty of harsh critiques that can be leveled against such models on many fronts, not the least of which, from my perspective, is personal liberty. Personally, I regard myself as a small-government, free-market, minimal regulation, generally conservative, libertarian. But I like to think that I don't blindly poo-poo ideologically distasteful options. I'd rather look at things objectively and judge them for their own merit, from a logical examination rather than from an emotional reaction. I just don't see how AI doesn't eventually become pervasive in all aspects of our lives. And I don't see how, when that occurs, labor itself, jobs, don't become for a large segment of society, obsolete. And I don't see how we avoid societal collapse under that scenario, without shifting to a new global socioeconomic/sociopolitical model.
Thoughts? As I said, I'm not really personally interested in arguing for a particular position on this, as I haven't really set up camp anywhere around this issue yet. I'll leave that to others who are more predisposed to debate. I would just like to hear what you smart Alabama fans have to say about the topic, and any of you other fans who happen to be lurking about.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d2c2f12-99e9-11e4-93c1-00144feabdc0.html
Here's the dilemma as I see it:
The world, whether one likes it or not, is a supply and demand world. That is, though some societies operate closer to the big government/communal-sharing model while others operate closer to the small government/every-man-for-himself model, on the whole, the world is a capitalist one to a lesser or greater degree, both at the individual level and at the international level, driven by what individuals and nations need and can supply relative to what other individuals and nations need and can supply. Whether one likes it or not, IMO, 99% of the human race is dependent on some form of supply and demand exchange, even if that dependency is indirect, via a government welfare system (that government has to raise capital somehow. For instance, half the world's consumable goods are supplied by socialist China to meet the world's demand - quite an impressively capitalist economic engine for a socialist society).
No matter the product, when you follow the supply chain back to its root, inevitably you get to labor. I suppose one could argue that the supply chain should be extended past labor to food and water, since without workers' physical sustenance, there is no labor. Though I haven't read a great deal of Marx, I would guess this line of thought is what the early Marxists were referring to when they spoke of the "means of production" and what led them to concentrate so fervently on labor, specifically agricultural labor (control of the most basic root supply: food). Whether it's labor or food/water, one of them has to be considered the most basic supply in a world that (like it or not) revolves around supply and demand. At least that's been the paradigm for the history of humanity until relatively recently.
Enter mass production and the advent of robotics in manufacturing several decades ago. Undoubtedly, many manufacturing jobs vanished from the demand side of the supply/demand equation as more and more manual jobs were replaced by robotic automation. It could be that factoring in population growth, demand on the whole increased at a pace that offset that job-loss. That is, though some jobs were lost to automation, more jobs were created in areas that couldn't yet be automated. In any event, the advancements in robotics weren't an enormous threat to supply-side labor, as it only affected a relatively small segment of the workforce, the automotive industry, for example. The vast majority of other jobs - jobs in the service industry, sales, healthcare, law, and a myriad of other areas that require some degree of situational flexibility and human intelligence remained untouched. All along though, many felt that the day was coming when advancements in artificial intelligence would slowly supplant some of those skills as well. But that day was theoretical and seemingly distant, science-fiction distant, star wars distant.
Well, here we are in 2015. By many accounts, we as a race are on the verge of creating artificial intelligence equal to and exceeding that of human beings. Computational algorithms with the sophistication and speed to match and exceed our highest expectations for their human counterparts in areas previously deemed off-limits. Algorithms that are conversationally indistinguishable from humans. Medical diagnosis, prescription and treatment. Many wide-ranging fields are thought to be vulnerable to supplantation by AI that will be available in the very near future. It goes without saying, startup costs will be high, but for those industries which undergo a similar transition to artificial intelligence as that which the automobile industry saw with automated robotics, exponential gains in efficiency will more than make it worthwhile. I see no reason to doubt that eventually, almost every industry will undergo at least some degree of transition to artificial intelligence.
So what happens to the supply and demand equation when that occurs, when the most basic supply that almost all people possess and upon which we all depend (human labor) is made obsolete? We suddenly have an enormous global supply of unoccupied labor in almost every field, for which there is plummeting demand. I don't think it's a reach to say that under that scenario, there are billions of people all over the world who no longer have a marketable skill with which to barter for the most basic necessities of life. And if the world deems it important to make such a transition smoothly and without undue suffering, there needs to be some kind of global paradigm shift away from the traditional supply and demand model.
Don't be mistaken - I am not suggesting that capitalism is bad or that the world necessarily needs to adopt a more socialist or Marxist economic model. There are plenty of harsh critiques that can be leveled against such models on many fronts, not the least of which, from my perspective, is personal liberty. Personally, I regard myself as a small-government, free-market, minimal regulation, generally conservative, libertarian. But I like to think that I don't blindly poo-poo ideologically distasteful options. I'd rather look at things objectively and judge them for their own merit, from a logical examination rather than from an emotional reaction. I just don't see how AI doesn't eventually become pervasive in all aspects of our lives. And I don't see how, when that occurs, labor itself, jobs, don't become for a large segment of society, obsolete. And I don't see how we avoid societal collapse under that scenario, without shifting to a new global socioeconomic/sociopolitical model.
Thoughts? As I said, I'm not really personally interested in arguing for a particular position on this, as I haven't really set up camp anywhere around this issue yet. I'll leave that to others who are more predisposed to debate. I would just like to hear what you smart Alabama fans have to say about the topic, and any of you other fans who happen to be lurking about.
