NWS Nieuws & Achtergronden
Discussieer hier diepgaander over de actualiteiten.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Patented Book Writing System Creates, Sells Hundreds Of Thousands Of Books On Amazon
Philip M. Parker, Professor of Marketing at INSEAD Business School, has had a side project for over 10 years. He’s created a computer system that can write books about specific subjects in about 20 minutes. The patented algorithm has so far generated hundreds of thousands of books. In fact, Amazon lists over 100,000 books attributed to Parker, and over 700,000 works listed for his company, ICON Group International, Inc. This doesn’t include the private works, such as internal reports, created for companies or licensing of the system itself through a separate entity called EdgeMaven Media.
Parker is not so much an author as a compiler, but the end result is the same: boatloads of written works.
Now these books aren’t your typical reading material. Common categories include specialized technical and business reports, language dictionaries bearing the “Webster’s” moniker (which is in the public domain), rare disease overviews, and even crossword puzzle books for learning foreign languages, but they all have the same thing in common: they are automatically generated by software.
The system automates this process by building databases of information to source from, providing an interface to customize a query about a topic, and creating templates for information to be packaged. Because digital ebooks and print-on-demand services have become commonplace, topics can be listed in Amazon without even being “written” yet.
The abstract for the U.S. patent issued in 2007 describes the system:
The present invention provides for the automatic authoring, marketing, and or distributing of title material. A computer automatically authors material. The material is automatically formatted into a desired format, resulting in a title material. The title material may also be automatically distributed to a recipient. Meta material, marketing material, and control material are automatically authored and if desired, distributed to a recipient. Further, the title may be authored on demand, such that it may be in any desired language and with the latest version and content.
To be clear, this isn’t just software alone but a computer system designated to write for a specific genre. The system’s database is filled with genre-relevant content and specific templates coded to reflect domain knowledge, that is, to be written according to an expert in that particular field/genre. To avoid copyright infringement, the system is designed to avoid plagiarism, but the patent aims to create original but not necessarily creative works. In other words, if any kind of content can be broken down into a formula, then the system could package related, but different content in that same formula repeatedly ad infinitum.
Parker explains the process in this nearly 10-minute video:
The success (and brilliance) of this system is that Parker designed the algorithms to mimic the thought process that an expert would necessarily go through in writing about a topic. It merely involves deconstructing content within a genre. He has some experience in this, as he has written at least three books the old fashioned way. It’s the recognition of how algorithmic content creation is (for the most part) that allows it to be coded as artificial intelligence.
A sampling of the list of books attributed to Parker is instructive:
- Webster’s Slovak – English Thesaurus Dictionary for $28.95
- The 2007-2012 World Outlook for Wood Toilet Seats for $795
- The World Market for Rubber Sheath Contraceptives (Condoms): A 2007 Global Trade Perspective for $325
- Ellis-van Creveld Syndrome – A Bibliography and Dictionary for Physicians, Patients, and Genome Researchers for $28.95
- Webster’s English to Haitian Creole Crossword Puzzles: Level 1 for $14.95
Considering that a single book costs somewhere between $0.20 to $0.50 to produce (the cost of electricity and hardware), the prices shown are considerably profit, even if very few of them are sold.
In truth, many nonfiction books — like news articles — often fall into formulas that cover the who, what, where, when, and why of a topic, perhaps the history or projected future, and some insight. Regardless of how topical information is presented or what comes with it, the core data must be present, even for incredibly obscure topics. And Parker is not alone in automating content either. The Chicago-based Narrative Science has been producing sport news and financial articles for Forbes for a while.
So, what’s the next book genre Parker is targeting to have software produce? Romance novels.
Although a novel is a work of fiction, it’s no secret that certain genres lend themselves to formulas, such as romance novels. That may not make these works rank high for their literary value, but they certainly do well for their entertainment value. Somewhat suprisingly, romance fiction has the largest share of the consumer book market with revenue of nearly $1.37 billion in 2011.
But can artificial intelligence produce creative works on par with what a human can produce? Yes…eventually. Perhaps the better questions are how soon will it happen and how relevant will they be? The answers may be right on the horizon if Parker can churn out romance novels that are read by the masses. Frankly, any creative work produced by artificial intelligence will be “successful” if it reads like a human being wrote it, or more precisely, like a human intelligence is behind the work.
But books may be just the beginning.
As Parker notes in his video, the software doesn’t have to be limited to written works. Using 3D animation and avatars, a variety of audio and video formats can be generated, and Parker indicates that these are being explored. Avatars that read compiled news stories might become preferred, especially if viewers were allowed to customize who reads the news to them and how in-depth those stories need to be.
Content creation technology could converge with other developments such as automated video transcription to expand the content that can be pulled from. Language translators would aid not only in content previously produced all over the world, but audio and video in real-time as well. Additionally, with lifeblogging allowing people to capture everything they say or is said to them, those could be packaged into personal biographies. If you add big data and analytics into the mix, you could have some serious content creation capabilities, all performed by designated computers.
The future of content is increasingly becoming the stuff of science fiction, but we still have some years before content creation is entirely in the hands of software. But if you have any doubts about where we are headed, consider this: the first novel written by a computer has already been published four years ago.
To learn more about Parker and his perspective on automatic content creators, check out this 2008 interview:
http://singularityhub.com(...)-books-and-counting/
Philip M. Parker, Professor of Marketing at INSEAD Business School, has had a side project for over 10 years. He’s created a computer system that can write books about specific subjects in about 20 minutes. The patented algorithm has so far generated hundreds of thousands of books. In fact, Amazon lists over 100,000 books attributed to Parker, and over 700,000 works listed for his company, ICON Group International, Inc. This doesn’t include the private works, such as internal reports, created for companies or licensing of the system itself through a separate entity called EdgeMaven Media.
Parker is not so much an author as a compiler, but the end result is the same: boatloads of written works.
Now these books aren’t your typical reading material. Common categories include specialized technical and business reports, language dictionaries bearing the “Webster’s” moniker (which is in the public domain), rare disease overviews, and even crossword puzzle books for learning foreign languages, but they all have the same thing in common: they are automatically generated by software.
The system automates this process by building databases of information to source from, providing an interface to customize a query about a topic, and creating templates for information to be packaged. Because digital ebooks and print-on-demand services have become commonplace, topics can be listed in Amazon without even being “written” yet.
The abstract for the U.S. patent issued in 2007 describes the system:
The present invention provides for the automatic authoring, marketing, and or distributing of title material. A computer automatically authors material. The material is automatically formatted into a desired format, resulting in a title material. The title material may also be automatically distributed to a recipient. Meta material, marketing material, and control material are automatically authored and if desired, distributed to a recipient. Further, the title may be authored on demand, such that it may be in any desired language and with the latest version and content.
To be clear, this isn’t just software alone but a computer system designated to write for a specific genre. The system’s database is filled with genre-relevant content and specific templates coded to reflect domain knowledge, that is, to be written according to an expert in that particular field/genre. To avoid copyright infringement, the system is designed to avoid plagiarism, but the patent aims to create original but not necessarily creative works. In other words, if any kind of content can be broken down into a formula, then the system could package related, but different content in that same formula repeatedly ad infinitum.
Parker explains the process in this nearly 10-minute video:
The success (and brilliance) of this system is that Parker designed the algorithms to mimic the thought process that an expert would necessarily go through in writing about a topic. It merely involves deconstructing content within a genre. He has some experience in this, as he has written at least three books the old fashioned way. It’s the recognition of how algorithmic content creation is (for the most part) that allows it to be coded as artificial intelligence.
A sampling of the list of books attributed to Parker is instructive:
- Webster’s Slovak – English Thesaurus Dictionary for $28.95
- The 2007-2012 World Outlook for Wood Toilet Seats for $795
- The World Market for Rubber Sheath Contraceptives (Condoms): A 2007 Global Trade Perspective for $325
- Ellis-van Creveld Syndrome – A Bibliography and Dictionary for Physicians, Patients, and Genome Researchers for $28.95
- Webster’s English to Haitian Creole Crossword Puzzles: Level 1 for $14.95
Considering that a single book costs somewhere between $0.20 to $0.50 to produce (the cost of electricity and hardware), the prices shown are considerably profit, even if very few of them are sold.
In truth, many nonfiction books — like news articles — often fall into formulas that cover the who, what, where, when, and why of a topic, perhaps the history or projected future, and some insight. Regardless of how topical information is presented or what comes with it, the core data must be present, even for incredibly obscure topics. And Parker is not alone in automating content either. The Chicago-based Narrative Science has been producing sport news and financial articles for Forbes for a while.
So, what’s the next book genre Parker is targeting to have software produce? Romance novels.
Although a novel is a work of fiction, it’s no secret that certain genres lend themselves to formulas, such as romance novels. That may not make these works rank high for their literary value, but they certainly do well for their entertainment value. Somewhat suprisingly, romance fiction has the largest share of the consumer book market with revenue of nearly $1.37 billion in 2011.
But can artificial intelligence produce creative works on par with what a human can produce? Yes…eventually. Perhaps the better questions are how soon will it happen and how relevant will they be? The answers may be right on the horizon if Parker can churn out romance novels that are read by the masses. Frankly, any creative work produced by artificial intelligence will be “successful” if it reads like a human being wrote it, or more precisely, like a human intelligence is behind the work.
But books may be just the beginning.
As Parker notes in his video, the software doesn’t have to be limited to written works. Using 3D animation and avatars, a variety of audio and video formats can be generated, and Parker indicates that these are being explored. Avatars that read compiled news stories might become preferred, especially if viewers were allowed to customize who reads the news to them and how in-depth those stories need to be.
Content creation technology could converge with other developments such as automated video transcription to expand the content that can be pulled from. Language translators would aid not only in content previously produced all over the world, but audio and video in real-time as well. Additionally, with lifeblogging allowing people to capture everything they say or is said to them, those could be packaged into personal biographies. If you add big data and analytics into the mix, you could have some serious content creation capabilities, all performed by designated computers.
The future of content is increasingly becoming the stuff of science fiction, but we still have some years before content creation is entirely in the hands of software. But if you have any doubts about where we are headed, consider this: the first novel written by a computer has already been published four years ago.
To learn more about Parker and his perspective on automatic content creators, check out this 2008 interview:
http://singularityhub.com(...)-books-and-counting/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Vet 
Je hebt trouwens ook een bedrijf wat stukjes schrijft over (lokale) sportwedstrijden op basis van een soort van matchreport, ook geheel automatisch. Zal even kijken of ik daar iets van terug kan vinden.
edit: hier -> http://statsheet.com/blog(...)of-sports-journalism
Je hebt trouwens ook een bedrijf wat stukjes schrijft over (lokale) sportwedstrijden op basis van een soort van matchreport, ook geheel automatisch. Zal even kijken of ik daar iets van terug kan vinden.
edit: hier -> http://statsheet.com/blog(...)of-sports-journalism
Maar dit alles kan toch heulemaal nie?! Boeken en teksten en artikelen schrijven dat is iets voor mensen! - aldus de skepticiquote:Op donderdag 13 december 2012 21:27 schreef tjoptjop het volgende:
Vet
Je hebt trouwens ook een bedrijf wat stukjes schrijft over (lokale) sportwedstrijden op basis van een soort van matchreport, ook geheel automatisch. Zal even kijken of ik daar iets van terug kan vinden.
edit: hier -> http://statsheet.com/blog(...)of-sports-journalism
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Jobs, Productivity and the Great Decoupling
A WONDERFUL ride has come to an end. For several decades after World War II the economic statistics we care most about all rose together here in America as if they were tightly coupled. G.D.P. grew, and so did productivity — our ability to get more output from each worker. At the same time, we created millions of jobs, and many of these were the kinds of jobs that allowed the average American worker, who didn’t (and still doesn’t) have a college degree, to enjoy a high and rising standard of living.
Productivity growth slowed in the 1970s but revved up again in the 1990s and has stayed strong most years since. But as shown by the accompanying graph, which was first drawn by the economist Jared Bernstein, productivity growth and employment growth started to become decoupled from each other at the end of that decade. Bernstein calls the gap that’s opened up “the jaws of the snake.” They show no signs of closing.
We are creating jobs, but not enough of them. The employment-to-population ratio, or percentage of working-age people that have work, dropped over 5 points during the Great Recession, and has improved only half a point in the three and a half years since it ended [pdf].
As the jaws of the snake opened, wages suffered even more than job growth. Adjusted for inflation, the average U.S. household now has lower income than it did in 1997. Wages as a share of G.D.P. are now at an all-time low, even as corporate profits are at an all-time high. The implicit bargain that gave workers a steady share of the productivity gains has unraveled.
What’s going on? Why have job volumes and wages become decoupled from the rest of the train of economic progress? There are several explanations, including tax and policy changes and the effects of globalization and off-shoring. We agree that these matter but want to stress another driver of the “Great Decoupling” — the changing nature of technological progress.
As digital devices like computers and robots get more capable thanks to Moore’s Law (the proposition that the number of transistors on a semiconductor can be inexpensively doubled about every two years), they can do more of the work that people used to do. Digital labor, in short, substitutes for human labor. This happens first with more routine tasks, which is a big part of the reason why less-educated workers have seen their wages fall the most as we moved deeper into the computer age.
As we move ahead the Great Decoupling will only accelerate, for two reasons. First, computers will keep getting cheaper over time. Digital labor will become cheaper than human labor not only in the United States and other rich countries, but also in places like China and India. Off-shoring is only a way station on the road to automation.
Second, technologies are going to continue to become more powerful, and to acquire more advanced skills and abilities. They can already drive cars, understand and produce natural human speech, write clean prose, and beat the best human Jeopardy! players. Digital progress has surprised a lot of people, and we ain’t seen nothing yet. Brawny computers, brainy programmers, and big data are a potent combination, and they’re nowhere near finished. The implications of their work for the labor force are nicely summarized by the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who says: “The spread of computers and the Internet will put jobs in two categories: People who tell computers what to do, and people who are told by computers what to do.” Only one of these two job categories will be well paid.
The Great Decoupling is not going to reverse course, for the simple reason that advances in digital technologies are not about to stop. In fact, we’re convinced that they are accelerating. And this should be great news for society. Digital progress lowers prices, improves quality, and brings us into a world where abundance becomes the norm.
But there is no economic law that says digital progress will benefit everyone evenly. As technology races ahead it can leave a lot of workers behind. In the short run we can improve their prospects greatly by investing in infrastructure, reforming education at all levels and encouraging entrepreneurs to invent the new products, services and industries that will create jobs.
While we’re doing this, however, we also need to start preparing for a technology-fueled economy that’s ever-more productive, but that just might not need a great deal of human labor. Designing a healthy society to go along with such an economy will be the great challenge, and the great opportunity, of the next generation.
We have to acknowledge that the old ride of tightly coupled statistics has ended, and start thinking about what we want the new ride to look like.
http://www.nytimes.com/20(...)decoupling.html?_r=0
A WONDERFUL ride has come to an end. For several decades after World War II the economic statistics we care most about all rose together here in America as if they were tightly coupled. G.D.P. grew, and so did productivity — our ability to get more output from each worker. At the same time, we created millions of jobs, and many of these were the kinds of jobs that allowed the average American worker, who didn’t (and still doesn’t) have a college degree, to enjoy a high and rising standard of living.
Productivity growth slowed in the 1970s but revved up again in the 1990s and has stayed strong most years since. But as shown by the accompanying graph, which was first drawn by the economist Jared Bernstein, productivity growth and employment growth started to become decoupled from each other at the end of that decade. Bernstein calls the gap that’s opened up “the jaws of the snake.” They show no signs of closing.
We are creating jobs, but not enough of them. The employment-to-population ratio, or percentage of working-age people that have work, dropped over 5 points during the Great Recession, and has improved only half a point in the three and a half years since it ended [pdf].
As the jaws of the snake opened, wages suffered even more than job growth. Adjusted for inflation, the average U.S. household now has lower income than it did in 1997. Wages as a share of G.D.P. are now at an all-time low, even as corporate profits are at an all-time high. The implicit bargain that gave workers a steady share of the productivity gains has unraveled.
What’s going on? Why have job volumes and wages become decoupled from the rest of the train of economic progress? There are several explanations, including tax and policy changes and the effects of globalization and off-shoring. We agree that these matter but want to stress another driver of the “Great Decoupling” — the changing nature of technological progress.
As digital devices like computers and robots get more capable thanks to Moore’s Law (the proposition that the number of transistors on a semiconductor can be inexpensively doubled about every two years), they can do more of the work that people used to do. Digital labor, in short, substitutes for human labor. This happens first with more routine tasks, which is a big part of the reason why less-educated workers have seen their wages fall the most as we moved deeper into the computer age.
As we move ahead the Great Decoupling will only accelerate, for two reasons. First, computers will keep getting cheaper over time. Digital labor will become cheaper than human labor not only in the United States and other rich countries, but also in places like China and India. Off-shoring is only a way station on the road to automation.
Second, technologies are going to continue to become more powerful, and to acquire more advanced skills and abilities. They can already drive cars, understand and produce natural human speech, write clean prose, and beat the best human Jeopardy! players. Digital progress has surprised a lot of people, and we ain’t seen nothing yet. Brawny computers, brainy programmers, and big data are a potent combination, and they’re nowhere near finished. The implications of their work for the labor force are nicely summarized by the venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, who says: “The spread of computers and the Internet will put jobs in two categories: People who tell computers what to do, and people who are told by computers what to do.” Only one of these two job categories will be well paid.
The Great Decoupling is not going to reverse course, for the simple reason that advances in digital technologies are not about to stop. In fact, we’re convinced that they are accelerating. And this should be great news for society. Digital progress lowers prices, improves quality, and brings us into a world where abundance becomes the norm.
But there is no economic law that says digital progress will benefit everyone evenly. As technology races ahead it can leave a lot of workers behind. In the short run we can improve their prospects greatly by investing in infrastructure, reforming education at all levels and encouraging entrepreneurs to invent the new products, services and industries that will create jobs.
While we’re doing this, however, we also need to start preparing for a technology-fueled economy that’s ever-more productive, but that just might not need a great deal of human labor. Designing a healthy society to go along with such an economy will be the great challenge, and the great opportunity, of the next generation.
We have to acknowledge that the old ride of tightly coupled statistics has ended, and start thinking about what we want the new ride to look like.
http://www.nytimes.com/20(...)decoupling.html?_r=0
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Voor mensen die de automatisering maar een slecht idee vinden:
70 Percent Of Your Employees Hate Their Jobs
The good news for the labor market—more people are voluntarily leaving their jobs than they did a year ago. The bad news for corporate managers—more people are voluntarily leaving their jobs. Once you start seeing this trend, you know that employees are discouraged, disillusioned, and uninspired.
I was shocked to see a new Gallup survey show that 71 percent of workers are “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” from their work. I checked several sources including Gallup’s own web site because I was sure it had to be a typo. Seventy-one percent of employees are not engaged in their work? No wonder customer service is the pits. Employees simply don’t care!
I can see the reaction now among managers and HR professionals across corporate America: Beef up incentives and perks like gift cards and free lunches. The trouble is nobody is inspired to get up Monday morning because their job offers free soda in the vending machine. People want to be inspired. They want to work toward a higher purpose and feel good about themselves and their leader. It requires better communication, not more perks.
Earlier this year I wrote a column titled The 7 Secrets of Inspiring Leaders. Recently I’ve been invited to speak on the subject to management groups at the world’s largest companies. It’s worth revisiting. You cannot afford disengaged employees. According to Gallup, people who are “emotionally disconnected from their workplaces are less likely to be productive.” And more likely to leave.
http://www.forbes.com/sit(...)connected-employees/
70 Percent Of Your Employees Hate Their Jobs
The good news for the labor market—more people are voluntarily leaving their jobs than they did a year ago. The bad news for corporate managers—more people are voluntarily leaving their jobs. Once you start seeing this trend, you know that employees are discouraged, disillusioned, and uninspired.
I was shocked to see a new Gallup survey show that 71 percent of workers are “not engaged” or “actively disengaged” from their work. I checked several sources including Gallup’s own web site because I was sure it had to be a typo. Seventy-one percent of employees are not engaged in their work? No wonder customer service is the pits. Employees simply don’t care!
I can see the reaction now among managers and HR professionals across corporate America: Beef up incentives and perks like gift cards and free lunches. The trouble is nobody is inspired to get up Monday morning because their job offers free soda in the vending machine. People want to be inspired. They want to work toward a higher purpose and feel good about themselves and their leader. It requires better communication, not more perks.
Earlier this year I wrote a column titled The 7 Secrets of Inspiring Leaders. Recently I’ve been invited to speak on the subject to management groups at the world’s largest companies. It’s worth revisiting. You cannot afford disengaged employees. According to Gallup, people who are “emotionally disconnected from their workplaces are less likely to be productive.” And more likely to leave.
http://www.forbes.com/sit(...)connected-employees/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Dit artikel is gebaseerd op o.a. de inzichten van Andre McAfee, die dit ook op z'n blog schrijft:quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/20(...)decoupling.html?_r=0
http://andrewmcafee.org/2(...)g-of-the-us-economy/quote:The Great Decoupling of the US Economy
by ANDREW MCAFEE on DECEMBER 12, 2012
If you were in charge of the economy, you’d probably care that it could produce a lot, that it had high productivity, that it provided lots of jobs, and that these jobs offered decent pay on average. You might well care about other things, too, but if these four indicators were all headed in the right direction over time (in other words, UP) you’d be pretty happy.
So how have we actually been doing in the US? Well, as the graphs below show we’ve been experiencing a long, slow decoupling between the first two of these — output and productivity — and the last two — jobs and wages. For more than three decades after the end of World War II all four of these measures went up together:
The French call the thirty years after the war les trente glorieuses, reflecting the shared economic prosperity of the period. Well, we had a bit more than trente spectaculaires of our own.
In the early 1980s the picture started to change for the average American worker. There were still a lot of jobs available, but they started to pay less well. Median household income became decoupled from the other three stats and grew more slowly than they did. By the time of the 2001 recession, median income was lagging behind pretty badly. If we’re going to stick with Gallic labeling, the years between 1982 and 2001 were the vingt troublantes:
By the end of 2011, things had become much worse in two ways. First, median household income was actually lower than it was a decade earlier. In fact, it was lower than at any point since 1996. And second, the American job creation engine was sputtering badly. Between 1981 and 2001 the economy generated plenty of low-paying jobs. After 2001, though, it wasn’t even generating enough of these, and employment growth started to lag badly behind GDP and productivity growth (on all three graphs here, GDP growth is charted on a separate axis because it grows more quickly than the other three). The last ten or so years have been les dix déprimantes.
What’s going on? Why have the things that workers care about – jobs and wages – become decoupled from the the other things that economy-watchers care about? So far, explanations for this unhappy phenomenon include tax and policy changes, and the effects of globalization and offshoring. These are clearly powerful forces, but there’s one other one: technological progress.
I’ve been talking a lot about this latter force here and elsewhere, and it’s the subject of Race Against the Machine, a short e-book Erik Brynjolfsson and I wrote that came out a bit more than a year ago (we’re working on a full-length sequel now).
Our argument, in brief, is that digital technologies have been able to do routine work for a while now. This allows them to substitute for less-skilled and -educated workers, and puts a lot of downward pressure on the median wage. As computers and robots get more and more powerful while simultaneously getting cheaper and more widespread this phenomenon spreads, to the point where economically rational employers prefer buying more technology over hiring more workers. In other words, they prefer capital over labor. This preference affects both wages and job volumes. And the situation will only accelerate as robots and computers learn to do more and more, and to take over jobs that we currently think of not as ‘routine,’ but as requiring a lot of skill and/or education.
As a result, I don’t see the four lines in the graphs above re-converging any time soon.
Over the past couple days this argument has gotten some attention and support from Paul Krugman, a Nobel-prize winning economist, New York Times columnist, and incredibly popular and prolific blogger. On Saturday he put up a post titled “Rise of the Robots” in which he wrote:
If this is the wave of the future, it makes nonsense of just about all the conventional wisdom on reducing inequality…
I think our eyes have been averted from the capital/labor dimension of inequality, for several reasons. It didn’t seem crucial back in the 1990s, and not enough people (me included!) have looked up to notice that things have changed. It has echoes of old-fashioned Marxism — which shouldn’t be a reason to ignore facts, but too often is. And it has really uncomfortable implications.
But I think we’d better start paying attention to those implications.
Erik and I sent him an e-copy of RAtM after reading the post. Krugman is evidently a fast reader, because his Monday Times column, entitled “Robots and Robber Barons” had this to say:
There’s no question that in some high-profile industries, technology is displacing workers of all, or almost all, kinds. For example, one of the reasons some high-technology manufacturing has lately been moving back to the United States is that these days the most valuable piece of a computer, the motherboard, is basically made by robots, so cheap Asian labor is no longer a reason to produce them abroad.
In a recent book, “Race Against the Machine,” M.I.T.’s Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue that similar stories are playing out in many fields, including services like translation and legal research. What’s striking about their examples is that many of the jobs being displaced are high-skill and high-wage; the downside of technology isn’t limited to menial workers.
Still, can innovation and progress really hurt large numbers of workers, maybe even workers in general? I often encounter assertions that this can’t happen. But the truth is that it can…
We agree completely. As we wrote,
computers are now doing many things that used to be the domain of people only. The pace and scale of this encroachment into human skills is relatively recent and has profound economic implications. Perhaps the most important of these is that while digital progress grows the overall economic pie, it can do so while leaving some people, or even a lot of them, worse off.
Krugman writes that “I think it’s fair to say that the shift of income from labor to capital has not yet made it into our national discourse… but it’s time to get started, before the robots and the robber barons turn our society into something unrecognizable.”
The national discourse needs to acknowledge the Great Decoupling, and also acknowledge that it’s not going to be reversed by a couple quick policy fixes or even, I believe, by deeper changes to our educational and entrepreneurial systems. I believe it’s a simple fact of the technological era we’ve been creating.
I want us to continue this work of creation — as I’ve said before, unplugging the computers would be about as bad an idea as ripping up all the roads and closing all the schools — but as we do so we need to rise to the grand challenge of dealing effectively with the Great Decoupling.
Ja, McAfee is zeer prominent aanwezig hiermee. Het boek uit de OP is van hemquote:Op vrijdag 14 december 2012 00:48 schreef Tijn het volgende:
[..]
Dit artikel is gebaseerd op o.a. de inzichten van Andre McAfee, die dit ook op z'n blog schrijft:
[..]
http://andrewmcafee.org/2(...)g-of-the-us-economy/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Dat zijn zeker journalisten die denken dat ze bijzonder zijnquote:Op donderdag 13 december 2012 21:38 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:
[..]
Maar dit alles kan toch heulemaal nie?! Boeken en teksten en artikelen schrijven dat is iets voor mensen! - aldus de skeptici
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Haha! Zal leuk zijn als er straks stukjes verschijnen die beter zijn dan wat sommige mensen schrijven. Er zullen dan heel wat ego's kapot gaanquote:Op vrijdag 14 december 2012 06:36 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
[..]
Dat zijn zeker journalisten die denken dat ze bijzonder zijn
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Pentagon jobs go to robots
“Defense spending creates jobs” is an argument that politicians often make to justify the ever-expanding Pentagon budget. A new factory from defense firm Raytheon shows something quite the contrary, though. At one new Raytheon plant, robots are doing most of the work. RT’s Kristine Frazao explains.
http://robotswillstealyou(...)ots-defense-spending
“Defense spending creates jobs” is an argument that politicians often make to justify the ever-expanding Pentagon budget. A new factory from defense firm Raytheon shows something quite the contrary, though. At one new Raytheon plant, robots are doing most of the work. RT’s Kristine Frazao explains.
http://robotswillstealyou(...)ots-defense-spending
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Artificial intelligence helps sort used batteries
Research at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden and Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden has resulted in a new type of machine that sorts used batteries by means of artificial intelligence (AI). One machine is now being used in the UK, sorting one-third of the country's recycled batteries.
'I got the idea at home when I was sorting rubbish. I thought it should be possible to do it automatically with artificial intelligence,' says Claes Strannegård, who is an AI researcher at the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology.
Strannegård contacted the publically owned recycling company Renova in Gothenburg, Sweden, who were positive to an R&D project concerning automatic sorting of collected batteries. The collaboration resulted in a machine that uses computerised optical recognition to sort up to ten batteries per second.
The sorting is made possible by the machine's so-called neural network, which can be thought of as an artificial nervous system. Just like a human brain, the neural network must be trained to do what it is supposed to do. In this case, the machine has been trained to recognise about 2,000 different types of batteries by taking pictures of them from all possible angles.
As the batteries are fed into the machine via a conveyor belt, they are 'visually inspected' by the machine via a camera. The neural network identifies the batteries in just a few milliseconds by comparing the picture taken with pictures taken earlier. The network is self-learning and robust, making it possible to recognise batteries even if they are dirty or damaged. Once the batteries have been identified, compressed air separates them into different containers according to chemical content, such as nickel-cadmium or lithium.
'For each single battery, the system stores and spits out information about for example brand, model and type. This allows the recycler to tell a larger market exactly what types of material it can offer, which we believe may increase the value through increased competition,' says Hans-Eric Melin, CEO of the Gothenburg-based company Optisort, which has developed the machine.
This means that besides the environmental benefits of the machine, there are commercial benefits. Today the collection and sorting companies are actually paying money to get rid of the batteries. But Melin thinks that real-time battery data could spark a new market for battery waste, where large volumes are traded online.
So far, the company has delivered two machines – one to Renova in Gothenburg (where half of all the batteries collected in Sweden are sorted) and one to G&P Batteries in the UK. The interest in Optisort and its machine is rising and Strannegård, who founded the company, is very happy his idea is turning out to work so well in the real world.
'This is sparking further research and development so that we will eventually use artificial intelligence to sort all types of waste,' he says.
http://www.zeitnews.org/a(...)-sort-used-batteries
Research at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden and Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden has resulted in a new type of machine that sorts used batteries by means of artificial intelligence (AI). One machine is now being used in the UK, sorting one-third of the country's recycled batteries.
'I got the idea at home when I was sorting rubbish. I thought it should be possible to do it automatically with artificial intelligence,' says Claes Strannegård, who is an AI researcher at the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology.
Strannegård contacted the publically owned recycling company Renova in Gothenburg, Sweden, who were positive to an R&D project concerning automatic sorting of collected batteries. The collaboration resulted in a machine that uses computerised optical recognition to sort up to ten batteries per second.
The sorting is made possible by the machine's so-called neural network, which can be thought of as an artificial nervous system. Just like a human brain, the neural network must be trained to do what it is supposed to do. In this case, the machine has been trained to recognise about 2,000 different types of batteries by taking pictures of them from all possible angles.
As the batteries are fed into the machine via a conveyor belt, they are 'visually inspected' by the machine via a camera. The neural network identifies the batteries in just a few milliseconds by comparing the picture taken with pictures taken earlier. The network is self-learning and robust, making it possible to recognise batteries even if they are dirty or damaged. Once the batteries have been identified, compressed air separates them into different containers according to chemical content, such as nickel-cadmium or lithium.
'For each single battery, the system stores and spits out information about for example brand, model and type. This allows the recycler to tell a larger market exactly what types of material it can offer, which we believe may increase the value through increased competition,' says Hans-Eric Melin, CEO of the Gothenburg-based company Optisort, which has developed the machine.
This means that besides the environmental benefits of the machine, there are commercial benefits. Today the collection and sorting companies are actually paying money to get rid of the batteries. But Melin thinks that real-time battery data could spark a new market for battery waste, where large volumes are traded online.
So far, the company has delivered two machines – one to Renova in Gothenburg (where half of all the batteries collected in Sweden are sorted) and one to G&P Batteries in the UK. The interest in Optisort and its machine is rising and Strannegård, who founded the company, is very happy his idea is turning out to work so well in the real world.
'This is sparking further research and development so that we will eventually use artificial intelligence to sort all types of waste,' he says.
http://www.zeitnews.org/a(...)-sort-used-batteries
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Winbot, The Window-Cleaning Robot, Coming Next Year
It’s no surprise that the first wave of robots that people have welcomed into their homes were charged with the menial task of cleaning. Now that iRobot’s Roomba has effectively quenched any fears about living with a robot, Chinese-based Ecovacs is ready to introduce another cleaning robot into your humble abode: the window-cleaning robot, Winbot.
Winbot works similarly to others cleaning bots in that it first maps out the scale of the surface to clean and then programs a path to track. Ecovacs has redesigned the Winbot to use suction instead of previous models that relied on magnets and two robots on either side of the window. It generates only 55 decibels during operation and can hold up to 37 pounds (17 kg). A safety pod also can also be attached to the window to prevent Winbot from crashing to the floor should the bot lose suction. Even though its batteries have now been replaced with a power cord attached, the new Winbot looks sleek and relatively easy to use.
The company’s infomercial for Winbot recently appeared on Mashable and it’s worth a look to see how well it appears to function:
Winbot will be appearing at next year’s Consumer Electronics Show, and hopefully a price will have been announced by then.
In addition to Winbot, Ecovacs has put together an entire line of household robots: the vacuum cleaner Deebot, the air purifying Atmobot, and Famibot, a telepresence bot equipped with motion detectors so it can serve as a sentry and send a text message to the homeowner should anything odd occur. With many companies looking to get robots into people’s homes, the competition is ramping up.
Winbot may not be the only window cleaning robot around, but it has the potential to become the de facto bot, if the price point is right. That could be tough as consumers don’t wash their windows nearly as often as they have to clean floors. Still, if Ecovacs can break into the US market with Winbot, then its full product line could get more traction.
We’ll have to wait until next year to see if Winbot can be a winner.
http://singularityhub.com(...)ot-coming-next-year/
It’s no surprise that the first wave of robots that people have welcomed into their homes were charged with the menial task of cleaning. Now that iRobot’s Roomba has effectively quenched any fears about living with a robot, Chinese-based Ecovacs is ready to introduce another cleaning robot into your humble abode: the window-cleaning robot, Winbot.
Winbot works similarly to others cleaning bots in that it first maps out the scale of the surface to clean and then programs a path to track. Ecovacs has redesigned the Winbot to use suction instead of previous models that relied on magnets and two robots on either side of the window. It generates only 55 decibels during operation and can hold up to 37 pounds (17 kg). A safety pod also can also be attached to the window to prevent Winbot from crashing to the floor should the bot lose suction. Even though its batteries have now been replaced with a power cord attached, the new Winbot looks sleek and relatively easy to use.
The company’s infomercial for Winbot recently appeared on Mashable and it’s worth a look to see how well it appears to function:
Winbot will be appearing at next year’s Consumer Electronics Show, and hopefully a price will have been announced by then.
In addition to Winbot, Ecovacs has put together an entire line of household robots: the vacuum cleaner Deebot, the air purifying Atmobot, and Famibot, a telepresence bot equipped with motion detectors so it can serve as a sentry and send a text message to the homeowner should anything odd occur. With many companies looking to get robots into people’s homes, the competition is ramping up.
Winbot may not be the only window cleaning robot around, but it has the potential to become the de facto bot, if the price point is right. That could be tough as consumers don’t wash their windows nearly as often as they have to clean floors. Still, if Ecovacs can break into the US market with Winbot, then its full product line could get more traction.
We’ll have to wait until next year to see if Winbot can be a winner.
http://singularityhub.com(...)ot-coming-next-year/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Autonomous robots may soon work alongside surgeons as part of newly funded project
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has granted funding for a four-year UC Berkeley research project that hopes to bring robots into surgery rooms. Led by Ken Goldberg and Pieter Abbeel, the team will utilize Raven II — an open-source hardware platform funded by the NSF — to create machines that are able to perform complex actions that are meant to complement the work of surgeons. The robots will assist with tasks that may be better suited for a mechanical device, such as retraction or suturing, which may otherwise require one or more assistants. As explained by Phys.org, the robots will be able to function autonomously with the help of human training and supervision, as well as human-defined algorithms and data resources.
Goldberg, a professor in the departments of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research and Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, has extensive experience with the Raven platform, and has been working with doctors and UC Berkeley and Johns Hopkins to use robots to assist with cancer surgery. Awarded with a $3.5 million grant, Golberg's latest endeavor is the first project to be funded as a result of the National Robotics Initiative, which intends to stimulate development of robots to work alongside humans with about $50 million available for project funding.
http://www.theverge.com/2(...)g-alongside-surgeons
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has granted funding for a four-year UC Berkeley research project that hopes to bring robots into surgery rooms. Led by Ken Goldberg and Pieter Abbeel, the team will utilize Raven II — an open-source hardware platform funded by the NSF — to create machines that are able to perform complex actions that are meant to complement the work of surgeons. The robots will assist with tasks that may be better suited for a mechanical device, such as retraction or suturing, which may otherwise require one or more assistants. As explained by Phys.org, the robots will be able to function autonomously with the help of human training and supervision, as well as human-defined algorithms and data resources.
Goldberg, a professor in the departments of Industrial Engineering and Operations Research and Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, has extensive experience with the Raven platform, and has been working with doctors and UC Berkeley and Johns Hopkins to use robots to assist with cancer surgery. Awarded with a $3.5 million grant, Golberg's latest endeavor is the first project to be funded as a result of the National Robotics Initiative, which intends to stimulate development of robots to work alongside humans with about $50 million available for project funding.
http://www.theverge.com/2(...)g-alongside-surgeons
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Kan me niet in het hele filmpje vinden, maar er worden wel goeie dingen gezegd. Ook wel leuk gemaakt, duurt 10 minuten:
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
KurzIAquote:Is growth over?
Global growth from the current industrial revolution (computers, the web, mobile phones) is slowing especially in advanced-technology economies, and long-term economic growth may grind to a halt, Robert J. Gordon, Stanley G. Harris Professor in the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Northwestern University, has argued.
Now economist Paul Krugman counters in The New York Times that we are moving toward a world in which “Big Data — the use of huge databases of things like spoken conversations — apparently makes it possible for machines to perform tasks that even a few years ago were really only possible for people.
“Speech recognition is still imperfect, but vastly better than it was and improving rapidly, not because we’ve managed to emulate human understanding but because we’ve found data-intensive ways of interpreting speech in a very non-human way.”
However, he warns, while smart machines may make higher GDP possible, “they also reduce the demand for people — including smart people. So we could be looking at a society that grows ever richer, but in which all the gains in wealth accrue to whoever owns the robots.”
Geld maakt meer kapot dan je lief is.
Het zijn sterke ruggen die vrijheid en weelde kunnen dragen
Het zijn sterke ruggen die vrijheid en weelde kunnen dragen
Fearmongering en overdrijving van de schaal van toepassing blijven immer menselijke eigenschappen.
Daar kan geen robot tegenop.
Daar kan geen robot tegenop.
The only limit is your own imagination
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Nog even en we kunnen straks alle gesubsidieerde orkesten opheffen:
Robot band!
http://robotswillstealyou(...)-spades-by-motorhead
Robot band!
http://robotswillstealyou(...)-spades-by-motorhead
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Artikel uit de Washington Post:
The robots are coming
http://www.washingtonpost(...)f65c3ad15_story.html
The robots are coming
http://www.washingtonpost(...)f65c3ad15_story.html
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
De nieuwe Roombaquote:
Winbot, The Window-Cleaning Robot, Coming Next Year
It’s no surprise that the first wave of robots that people have welcomed into their homes were charged with the menial task of cleaning. Now that iRobot’s Roomba has effectively quenched any fears about living with a robot, Chinese-based Ecovacs is ready to introduce another cleaning robot into your humble abode: the window-cleaning robot, Winbot.
Winbot works similarly to others cleaning bots in that it first maps out the scale of the surface to clean and then programs a path to track. Ecovacs has redesigned the Winbot to use suction instead of previous models that relied on magnets and two robots on either side of the window. It generates only 55 decibels during operation and can hold up to 37 pounds (17 kg). A safety pod also can also be attached to the window to prevent Winbot from crashing to the floor should the bot lose suction. Even though its batteries have now been replaced with a power cord attached, the new Winbot looks sleek and relatively easy to use.
[ afbeelding ]
The company’s infomercial for Winbot recently appeared on Mashable and it’s worth a look to see how well it appears to function:
Winbot will be appearing at next year’s Consumer Electronics Show, and hopefully a price will have been announced by then.
In addition to Winbot, Ecovacs has put together an entire line of household robots: the vacuum cleaner Deebot, the air purifying Atmobot, and Famibot, a telepresence bot equipped with motion detectors so it can serve as a sentry and send a text message to the homeowner should anything odd occur. With many companies looking to get robots into people’s homes, the competition is ramping up.
Winbot may not be the only window cleaning robot around, but it has the potential to become the de facto bot, if the price point is right. That could be tough as consumers don’t wash their windows nearly as often as they have to clean floors. Still, if Ecovacs can break into the US market with Winbot, then its full product line could get more traction.
We’ll have to wait until next year to see if Winbot can be a winner.
http://singularityhub.com(...)ot-coming-next-year/
Nu nog eentje die mn toilet kan schoonmakenquote:
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
NWS / Vrijgezelle man maakt toilet twee keer per jaar schoonquote:
[..]
Nu nog eentje die mn toilet kan schoonmaken
Ik weet dingen in het huis die meer aandacht vragen
quote:Stephen Hawking Joins Anti-Robot Apocalypse Think Tank
Stephen Hawking, who turns 71 today, has joined the board of an international think tank devoted to defending humanity from futuristic threats. The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk is a newly founded organization which researches existential threats to humanity such as extreme climate change, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, artificial life, nanotech, and other emerging technologies. Skype cofounder Jaan Tallinn and Cambridge professors Huw Price and Martin Rees founded the project in late 2012.
Price and Tallinn collaborated on a speech at the 2012 Sydney Ideas Festival which argued that artificial intelligence has reached a threshold that could lead to an explosion of autonomous machine dominance similar to the rise of Homo sapiens. The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk's stated goal is to establish a research center dedicated to the study of autonomous robot (and other) threats within Cambridge University.
http://www.fastcompany.co(...)pocalypse-think-tank
quote:The Cambridge Project for Existential Risk
Many scientists are concerned that developments in human technology may soon pose new, extinction-level risks to our species as a whole. Such dangers have been suggested from progress in AI, from developments in biotechnology and artificial life, from nanotechnology, and from possible extreme effects of anthropogenic climate change. The seriousness of these risks is difficult to assess, but that in itself seems a cause for concern, given how much is at stake.
http://cser.org/index.html
Video verslag van 15 minuten van CBS 60 minutes:
Are robots hurting job growth?
Technological advances, especially robotics, are revolutionizing the workplace, but not necessarily creating jobs. Steve Kroft reports.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138922n&tag=api
Are robots hurting job growth?
Technological advances, especially robotics, are revolutionizing the workplace, but not necessarily creating jobs. Steve Kroft reports.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50138922n&tag=api
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
quote:
quote:Een restaurant in het Chinese Harbin, ruim 1000 kilometer ten noordoosten van Peking, heeft 20 robots in dienst genomen. Ze kunnen allemaal tien verschillende gezichtsuitdrukkingen uitbeelden en vriendelijkheden uitkramen om klanten welkom te heten.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Er zijn best veel soorten banen die vrij eenvoudig geautomatiseerd kunnen worden. Maar ik denk dat overheden daar wel een rol in gaan spelen om dat (deels) te voorkomen. Bepaalde eisen aan grote bedrijven voor het bieden van genoeg werkgelegenheid et cetera.
Maar stel dat het niet gebeurd, dan kan er met de technologie van anno nu miljoenen banen vervangen worden door machines (al lijkt dat mij sterk, wanneer de werkloosheid buiten proporties toeneemt en er grote sociologische problemen gaan ontstaan grijpt men heus wel in).
Als elke supermarkt bijvoorbeeld overgaat op enkel automatische kassa's en automatische vakkenvulmachines dan stijgt de jeugdwerkloosheid in NL al enorm.
Maar stel dat het niet gebeurd, dan kan er met de technologie van anno nu miljoenen banen vervangen worden door machines (al lijkt dat mij sterk, wanneer de werkloosheid buiten proporties toeneemt en er grote sociologische problemen gaan ontstaan grijpt men heus wel in).
Als elke supermarkt bijvoorbeeld overgaat op enkel automatische kassa's en automatische vakkenvulmachines dan stijgt de jeugdwerkloosheid in NL al enorm.
Ik zag trouwens laatst bij de Mac dat ze daar nu ook automatische bestelzuilen hebben, scheelt weer cassieres. Alleen 1 ophaal counterquote:Op dinsdag 15 januari 2013 03:03 schreef Specularium het volgende:
Bij de Mac zou dat ook prima kunnen.
Kwam deze net tegen. Fruit plukken is precies zo'n baantje welke over een aantal jaren helemaal verdwenen kan zijn.quote:
Er zijn best veel soorten banen die vrij eenvoudig geautomatiseerd kunnen worden. Maar ik denk dat overheden daar wel een rol in gaan spelen om dat (deels) te voorkomen. Bepaalde eisen aan grote bedrijven voor het bieden van genoeg werkgelegenheid et cetera.
Maar stel dat het niet gebeurd, dan kan er met de technologie van anno nu miljoenen banen vervangen worden door machines (al lijkt dat mij sterk, wanneer de werkloosheid buiten proporties toeneemt en er grote sociologische problemen gaan ontstaan grijpt men heus wel in).
Als elke supermarkt bijvoorbeeld overgaat op enkel automatische kassa's en automatische vakkenvulmachines dan stijgt de jeugdwerkloosheid in NL al enorm.
Wat betreft de werkgelegenheid, er zullen natuurlijk ook een hoop nieuwe banen bijkomen. Maar ik besef me dat dit hogere banen zijn. De overheid moet daarom idd ingrijpen wellicht maar wel op een goede manier. Bijvoorbeeld door mensen te laten omscholen, een tweede studie betaalbaar maken. Helaas lijkt dat nu meer de andere kant op te gaan...
Opgeblazen gevoel of winderigheid? Zo opgelost met Rennie!
Tot op heden lijkt er weinig besef te zijn in de politiek dat de automatisering van verschillende uiteenlopende taken gaande is. Verder lijkt het me vrij lastig voor een overheid om een bedrijf te verplichten niet over te gaan tot automatisering van bepaalde functies, als land A nee zegt, dan gaat dat bedrijf wel naar land B waar het wel mag.quote:
Er zijn best veel soorten banen die vrij eenvoudig geautomatiseerd kunnen worden. Maar ik denk dat overheden daar wel een rol in gaan spelen om dat (deels) te voorkomen. Bepaalde eisen aan grote bedrijven voor het bieden van genoeg werkgelegenheid et cetera.
Maar stel dat het niet gebeurd, dan kan er met de technologie van anno nu miljoenen banen vervangen worden door machines (al lijkt dat mij sterk, wanneer de werkloosheid buiten proporties toeneemt en er grote sociologische problemen gaan ontstaan grijpt men heus wel in).
Als elke supermarkt bijvoorbeeld overgaat op enkel automatische kassa's en automatische vakkenvulmachines dan stijgt de jeugdwerkloosheid in NL al enorm.
Nederland als kenniseconomie zou er goed aan doen om eens een goede strategische beslissing te maken omtrent dit onderwerp, proberen om bijvoorbeeld zoveel mogelijk jeugd de keuze te laten maken voor een technische opleiding en bedrijven stimuleren die zich bezig houden met dit onderwerp.
Automatisering van de maatschappij is gewoon een feit en is ook iets wat niet te stoppen is, in plaats van eigenwijs nee te gaan zeggen tegen deze ontwikkeling zouden we onze best moeten doen om juist bij de toplanden te gaan behoren die inzetten op deze ontwikkeling.
Helemaal mee eens. Automatisering is idd niet te stoppen in de huidige (kapitalistische) samenleving. Het is gewoon de volgende stap die genomen moet worden door bedrijven om concurrent te blijven. Doe je dat niet, dan ga je achter lopen en uiteindelijk red je het dan gewoon niet. Als bedrijf A met robots 10 keer zo snel kan produceren MOET bedrijf B wel meegaan.quote:
[..]
Tot op heden lijkt er weinig besef te zijn in de politiek dat de automatisering van verschillende uiteenlopende taken gaande is. Verder lijkt het me vrij lastig voor een overheid om een bedrijf te verplichten niet over te gaan tot automatisering van bepaalde functies, als land A nee zegt, dan gaat dat bedrijf wel naar land B waar het wel mag.
Nederland als kenniseconomie zou er goed aan doen om eens een goede strategische beslissing te maken omtrent dit onderwerp, proberen om bijvoorbeeld zoveel mogelijk jeugd de keuze te laten maken voor een technische opleiding en bedrijven stimuleren die zich bezig houden met dit onderwerp.
Automatisering van de maatschappij is gewoon een feit en is ook iets wat niet te stoppen is, in plaats van eigenwijs nee te gaan zeggen tegen deze ontwikkeling zouden we onze best moeten doen om juist bij de toplanden te gaan behoren die inzetten op deze ontwikkeling.
We moeten dan ook niet kijken hoe je dit kan tegenhouden, maar juist hoe we ermee kunnen leven.
Opgeblazen gevoel of winderigheid? Zo opgelost met Rennie!
Netjes, nu nog een robot die het ook kan inpakken erop zetten(ze bestaan al!).quote:Op zondag 20 januari 2013 00:46 schreef Eyjafjallajoekull het volgende:
[..]
Kwam deze net tegen. Fruit plukken is precies zo'n baantje welke over een aantal jaren helemaal verdwenen kan zijn.
Wat betreft de werkgelegenheid, er zullen natuurlijk ook een hoop nieuwe banen bijkomen. Maar ik besef me dat dit hogere banen zijn. De overheid moet daarom idd ingrijpen wellicht maar wel op een goede manier. Bijvoorbeeld door mensen te laten omscholen, een tweede studie betaalbaar maken. Helaas lijkt dat nu meer de andere kant op te gaan...
Mensen omscholen is helaas maar een deeloplossing, lang niet iedereen heeft het technisch inzicht en een land heeft ook maar zoveel monteurs en ontwerpers nodig.
Prachtig filmpje van de NYtimes over automatisering
http://www.nytimes.com/vi(...)-factory-future.html
http://www.nytimes.com/vi(...)-factory-future.html
Opgeblazen gevoel of winderigheid? Zo opgelost met Rennie!
Simpel. We moeten af van het idee dat iedereen moet werken voor zijn basisbehoeften.quote:
[..]
Helemaal mee eens. Automatisering is idd niet te stoppen in de huidige (kapitalistische) samenleving. Het is gewoon de volgende stap die genomen moet worden door bedrijven om concurrent te blijven. Doe je dat niet, dan ga je achter lopen en uiteindelijk red je het dan gewoon niet. Als bedrijf A met robots 10 keer zo snel kan produceren MOET bedrijf B wel meegaan.
We moeten dan ook niet kijken hoe je dit kan tegenhouden, maar juist hoe we ermee kunnen leven.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Bij tegenlicht had men gisteren een vooruitblik op afleveringen die men komende tijd gaat uitzenden, daar zitten er volgens mij 2 tussen die precies in de context van deze discussie passen.
Er is nog niks van te merken dat deze gedachte zelfs maar een klein beetje speelt in dit land. Eerder andersom, er wordt vanuit Den Haag op gehamerd dat "de werkenden" er niet op achteruit mogen gaan en nergens de dupe van mogen worden.quote:
[..]
Simpel. We moeten af van het idee dat iedereen moet werken voor zijn basisbehoeften.
Ja, laten we een zuipende en blowende onderklasse genereren die nooit werkt en iedere maand een fijn bedrag krijgen. Dat was al eerder zo een succes.quote:
[..]
Simpel. We moeten af van het idee dat iedereen moet werken voor zijn basisbehoeften.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Pietverdriet op 22-01-2013 10:18:30 ]
In Baden-Badener Badeseen kann man Baden-Badener baden sehen.
Nee laten we gewoon dan maar nutteloze banen bedenken alleen om elkaar aan het werk te houden.quote:
[..]
Ja, laten we een zuipende en blowende onderklasse genereren die nooit werkt en iedere maand een fijn bedrag krijgen. Dat was al eerder zo een succes.
Met 15% van de werkkrachten in de VS is men zelfvoorzienend, de rest is alleen maar bezig om elkaar bezig te houden en op die manier een rechtvaardiging te hebben voor de werkenden.
Kijk de tegenlicht uitzending van gisteren om de previews van Peter Diamandis en Douglas Rushkoff en kom dan nog maar eens terug met deze goedkope retoriek.
Stel, je automatiseert alles. Wat valt er dan nog te werken? Het enige argument is jouw jaloezie.quote:
[..]
Ja, laten we een zuipende en blowende onderklasse genereren die nooit werkt en iedere maand een fijn bedrag krijgen. Dat was al eerder zo een succes.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Ja heb t gezien, ben ook erg benieuwd naar die afleveringen.quote:
Bij tegenlicht had men gisteren een vooruitblik op afleveringen die men komende tijd gaat uitzenden, daar zitten er volgens mij 2 tussen die precies in de context van deze discussie passen.
Die ene gozer zegt t ook zo goed met zn vergelijking met de operating system van een computer. In principe is het operating system dat wij gebruiken voor onze maatschappij al zwaar verouderd. Het stamt uit de dertiende eeuw zelfs.
T is net alsof we nog MS-DOS draaien op de nieuwste I7 computers.
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Plus hij is geïndoctrineerd door het systeem waarin hij is opgegroeid.quote:Op dinsdag 22 januari 2013 14:24 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
[..]
Stel, je automatiseert alles. Wat valt er dan nog te werken? Het enige argument is jouw jaloezie.
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Iddquote:
[..]
Nee laten we gewoon dan maar nutteloze banen bedenken alleen om elkaar aan het werk te houden.
Laten we dan gewoon allemaal 20 uur per week gaan werken
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Computers Are Replacing The Middle Class
Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.
– Oscar Wilde
http://articles.businessi(...)gap-computers-robots
Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralizing. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.
– Oscar Wilde
http://articles.businessi(...)gap-computers-robots
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Daarnaast: als er geen mensen meer nodig zijn, kunnen de kosten voor bedrijven fors omlaag. Producten kunnen dus ook goedkoper aangeboden worden. Dus hebben we minder geld nodig om ze te kopen. Dus maakt het niet uit dat we veel minder werkenquote:
[..]
Stel, je automatiseert alles. Wat valt er dan nog te werken? Het enige argument is jouw jaloezie.
.
You won't be lost, hurt, tired or lonely - Something beautiful will come your way
Het enige dat niet te automatiseren valt is creatief denkwerk. Daaruit volgt dat het verzinnen van nieuwe dingen uiteindelijk het enige is waar mensen voor nodig blijven.quote:
[..]
Stel, je automatiseert alles. Wat valt er dan nog te werken? Het enige argument is jouw jaloezie.
Dat zullen we nog wel eens zien.quote:
[..]
Het enige dat niet te automatiseren valt is creatief denkwerk.
quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_creativity
The goal of computational creativity is to model, simulate or replicate creativity using a computer, to achieve one of several ends:
quote:http://www.thinkartificial.org/artificial-creativity/
Artificial Creativity (or computational creativity) is a branch of Artificial Intelligence that deals with the development and exploration of systems that exhibit creative behavior. This includes systems capable of such things as scientific invention, visual artistry, music composition and story generation.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
boute stellingquote:
[..]
Het enige dat niet te automatiseren valt is creatief denkwerk. Daaruit volgt dat het verzinnen van nieuwe dingen uiteindelijk het enige is waar mensen voor nodig blijven.
Er gaat niets boven lekker in de zon zitten in de achtertuin met een heel koud glas bier , als je al 72 jaar bent en nog gezond, laat ze maar lachen de sukkels
Ik snap best dat er onderzoek wordt gedaan en dat is ook goed, maar ik geloof er persoonlijk niet in dat het mogelijk is dat een computer een nieuwe oplossing voor een bestaand probleem kan verzinnen. Er is in elk geval nog nooit een stap gezet in die richting.quote:
[..]
Dat zullen we nog wel eens zien.
quote:
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Ik zie graag argumenten die het tegendeel bewijzen, hoor. Maar ik heb nog nooit ook maar iets gezien dat in de richting gaat van een creatief proces vanuit een computeralgoritme.
100 jaar geleden hadden ze ook nog nooit een vliegtuig gezien.quote:Op woensdag 23 januari 2013 20:38 schreef Tijn het volgende:
Ik zie graag argumenten die het tegendeel bewijzen, hoor. Maar ik heb nog nooit ook maar iets gezien dat in de richting gaat van een creatief proces vanuit een computeralgoritme.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Het idee van het bouwen van een vliegmachine is natuurlijk al hartstikke oud. Er zijn door de eeuwen heen allerlei concepten bedacht en veel daarvan konden ook best een stukje vliegen. Dat de mens zou gaan vliegen stond al heel lang vast en dat het mogelijk werd om een lange vlucht te maken was vooral een kwestie van wachten op een methode om genoeg voortstuwing te produceren. Nadat de verbrandingsmotor was uitgevonden, volgenden de eerste moderne vliegtuigen vrij snel.quote:
[..]
100 jaar geleden hadden ze ook nog nooit een vliegtuig gezien.
Dat is heel wat anders dan het doorgronden van het creatieve proces en het vervolgens kunstmatig nabootsen hiervan. Wat dat betreft hebben we nog niet eens een idee hoe we zouden moeten beginnen, laat staan dat er enige voortgang is geboekt.
Natuurlijk kan ik de toekomst ook niet voorspellen en zou er over 1000 jaar van alles mogelijk kunnen zijn wat ik me nu niet kan voorstellen. Maar ik denk dat je redelijkerwijs wel kunt stellen dat wij in ons leven niet gaan meemaken dat computers iets creatiefs doen.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Tijn op 23-01-2013 21:51:08 ]
Nee, jij hebt geen idee hoe je moet beginnen.quote:
Wat dat betreft hebben we nog niet eens een idee hoe we zouden moeten beginnen,
Er zijn al algoritmen om teksten te schrijven en muziek te maken, zelfs real-time begeleidende muziek bij een improviserende artiest.
We zijn al lang begonnen. We zijn alleen net iets verder met vliegen.
SPOILEROm spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.
[ Bericht 63% gewijzigd door Papierversnipperaar op 23-01-2013 22:14:10 ]Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Mwah, ik denk dat ik redelijk op de hoogte ben van wat er kan met computers.quote:
[..]
Nee, jij hebt geen idee hoe je moet beginnen.
Dat heeft niks met creatie te maken, maar puur op het herhalen van eerder ingevoerde dingen of willekeur. Er is nog nooit een muziekstuk door een computer bedacht zoals een mens muziek bedenkt.quote:Er zijn al algoritmen om teksten te schrijven en muziek te maken, zelfs real-time begeleidende muziek bij een improviserende artiest.
Natuurlijk wordt er onderzoek gedaan en dat is ook goed, dat zei ik al. Maar er is, ondanks dat we al tientallen jaren met dit onderwerp bezig zijn, nog geen enkel daadwerkelijk resultaat geboekt en het lijkt er ook niet op dat dat binnenkort wel gaat gebeuren. Bovenstaand stuk toont dat ook weer aan: veel wilde plannen, maar geen resultaten. Computers zijn goed in het uitvoeren van instructies, maar niet in het verzinnen van instructies, omdat we niet weten hoe "verzinnen" überhaupt werkt.quote:We zijn al lang begonnen. We zijn alleen net iets verder met vliegen.
[spoiler]Dr. Ben Goertzel - Artificial General Intelligence: Now Is the Time Essay: www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0701.html Abstract: When the AI field was founded over 50 years ago, it was squarely focused on the grand dream of creating software displaying general intelligence at the human level or beyond. Since that time the field has drifted in a direction Ray Kurzweil has called "Narrow AI": the creation of intelligent software applications carrying out highly particular functions. The relationship between this sort of narrow AI and "artificial general intelligence" (AGI) as in the original dreams of the AI field, is an issue of dispute among experts. Some researchers believe powerful AGI will result eventually from the development and combination of narrow AI products -- such as, for example, data mining software as is commonly used in the finance industry; auto navigation software like the kind used in the DARPA Grand Challenge; and last but not least, sophisticated search engines like Google. Other researchers believe that AGI will only come about via emulation of the human brain, once brain mapping technology has advanced further. On the other hand, an increasing minority of researchers believes that AGI is most likely to be achieved via computer science researchers explicitly attempting to create AGI software programs, divorced from any particular narrow application area. In this talk I will briefly overview this emerging subdiscipline of "AGI", including the work of various researchers such as Stan Franklin, Pei Wang and Stuart Shapiro. I will then discuss my own work on the Novamente Cognition Engine, an AGI project based on combining a number of knowledge representations and reasoning and learning techniques into an integrative architecture motivated by complex systems theory, and initially oriented at the control of virtual agents in 3D simulation worlds such as Second Life.
Google engEDU
Speaker: Ben Goertzel[/spoiler]
Er zijn wel resultaten, alleen niet in de vorm van een super human intelligence.quote:
Natuurlijk wordt er onderzoek gedaan en dat is ook goed, dat zei ik al. Maar er is, ondanks dat we al tientallen jaren met dit onderwerp bezig zijn, nog geen enkel daadwerkelijk resultaat geboekt .
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Zoals? Ik ben oprecht benieuwd.quote:
[..]
Er zijn wel resultaten
Ik heb nog nooit een voorbeeld gezien van échte creatie. Alles wat ik computers heb zien doen is het (al dan niet willekeurig) combineren van eerder ingevoerde data, maar nooit het verzinnen van iets nieuws.
Doen mensen dat wel dan?quote:Op woensdag 23 januari 2013 22:30 schreef Tijn het volgende:
[..]
Zoals? Ik ben oprecht benieuwd.
Ik heb nog nooit een voorbeeld gezien van échte creatie. Alles wat ik computers heb zien doen is het (al dan niet willekeurig) combineren van eerder ingevoerde data, maar nooit het verzinnen van iets nieuws.
quote:Programmers at the University of Malaga have created a computer that is able to produce a piece of music in just 8 minutes.
The computer, known as Iamus (named after a son of Apollo), writes pieces through a system called 'Melomics' which attempts to replicate the evolution of a human composition. Although this is not the first experiment of its type, Iamus is the first computer-composer that doesn’t require any human intervention.
On 2 July 2012 a number of Iamus’s pieces were streamed live from Malaga as part of a concert marking mathematician Alan Turing's 100th anniversary.
Iamus's debut disc of compositions, to be released in September this year, will feature a number of performances by the London Symphony Orchestra. The pianist Gustavo Diaz-Jerez, who will also feature on the album, said members of the LSO were 'surprised' by the quality of the music.
Despite this success, Iamus probably does not spell the end for the human composer. Pieces such as Hello World, for clarinet, piano and violin, do not make for particularly easy listening.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
De een meer dan de ander natuurlijk, maar alle mensen zijn in staat om iets nieuws te verzinnen of een probleem op een originele manier op te lossen. Wat computers doen is altijd een gevolg van een set instructies. Je zou het resultaat ook zonder computer kunnen berekenen en bij gelijke invoer is de uitvoer altijd hetzelfde. Daarom kan ik me niet voorstellen dat een computer met iets origineels kan komen. Hooguit kan de indruk worden gewekt dat er een creatief proces plaatsvindt, maar in feite ligt de creativiteit volledig bij de (door de mensen geschreven) instructie en komt er niets vanuit de computer zelf.quote:
Met die definitie moet je wachten tot de eerste AI's de eerste AI's gebouwd hebben. Anders kan je altijd stellen dat de mens te veel invloed heeft gehad.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Nog een artikel over onze technologie die onze banen "afpakt". De laatste tijd zie ik steeds meer en meer van dit soort artikelen. Begint het besef dan toch door te dringen?
Practically human: Can smart machines do your job?
.....
In the U.S., more than 1.1 million secretaries vanished from the job market between 2000 and 2010, their job security shattered by software that lets bosses field calls themselves and arrange their own meetings and trips. Over the same period, the number of telephone operators plunged by 64 percent, word processors and typists by 63 percent, travel agents by 46 percent and bookkeepers by 26 percent, according to Labor Department statistics.
In Europe, technology is shaking up human resources departments across the continent. "Nowadays, employees are expected to do a lot of what we used to think of as HR from behind their own computer," says Ron van Baden, a negotiator with the Dutch labor union federation FNV. "It used to be that you could walk into the employee affairs office with a question about your pension, or the terms of your contract. That's all gone and automated."
Two-thirds of the 7.6 million middle-class jobs that vanished in Europe were the victims of technology, estimates economist Maarten Goos at Belgium's University of Leuven.
........
http://news.yahoo.com/pra(...)642993--finance.html
Practically human: Can smart machines do your job?
.....
In the U.S., more than 1.1 million secretaries vanished from the job market between 2000 and 2010, their job security shattered by software that lets bosses field calls themselves and arrange their own meetings and trips. Over the same period, the number of telephone operators plunged by 64 percent, word processors and typists by 63 percent, travel agents by 46 percent and bookkeepers by 26 percent, according to Labor Department statistics.
In Europe, technology is shaking up human resources departments across the continent. "Nowadays, employees are expected to do a lot of what we used to think of as HR from behind their own computer," says Ron van Baden, a negotiator with the Dutch labor union federation FNV. "It used to be that you could walk into the employee affairs office with a question about your pension, or the terms of your contract. That's all gone and automated."
Two-thirds of the 7.6 million middle-class jobs that vanished in Europe were the victims of technology, estimates economist Maarten Goos at Belgium's University of Leuven.
........
http://news.yahoo.com/pra(...)642993--finance.html
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Kijktip:
Kijken via de site gaat niet vanuit Nederland maar een Torrent is zo gevonden.
Gaat over de drones van de Amerikaanse luchtmacht. Hoe nu de transitie gaande is van bemande vliegtuigen naar vliegtuigen die vanaf de andere kant van de wereld worden bestuurd. Maar ook de toekomst waarbij het mogelijk moet gaan worden om volledig autonomous te vliegen, een ontwikkeling waar enkele Amerikaanse universiteiten nu mee bezig zijn.quote:Rise of the Drones
Drones. These unmanned flying robots–some as large as jumbo jets, others as small as birds–do things straight out of science fiction. Much of what it takes to get these robotic airplanes to fly, sense, and kill has remained secret. But now, with rare access to drone engineers and those who fly them for the U.S. military, NOVA reveals the amazing technologies that make drones so powerful as we see how a remotely-piloted drone strike looks and feels from inside the command center. From cameras that can capture every detail of an entire city at a glance to swarming robots that can make decisions on their own to giant air frames that can stay aloft for days on end, drones are changing our relationship to war, surveillance, and each other. And it's just the beginning. Discover the cutting edge technologies that are propelling us toward a new chapter in aviation history as NOVA gets ready for "Rise of the Drones."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/rise-of-the-drones.html
Kijken via de site gaat niet vanuit Nederland maar een Torrent is zo gevonden.
Uit Businessweek:
Will Robots Create Economic Utopia?
The robots are coming! Every day it seems we hear another story blaming robots and automation for the disappearance of not only menial jobs, but middle-class ones as well—the kind of work that pays enough to fund a pension, a health-care plan, and a home mortgage. The deepening gloom over jobs runs deeper than robots. The rapidly spreading digital economy has reached critical mass, transforming industries and replacing workers of all kinds.
Think high-speed trading on Wall Street. The lightning-quick trades account for most of the volume on the major stock exchanges, yet the action is driven by computers and software communicating with other computers and software, supervised and monitored by at most a relative handful of highly compensated workers. (As a Wharton School report put it, “In the time it takes to read this sentence, tens of thousands of high-speed, computer-automated transactions can occur.”)
Lees (veel) meer:
http://www.businessweek.c(...)eate-economic-utopia
Will Robots Create Economic Utopia?
The robots are coming! Every day it seems we hear another story blaming robots and automation for the disappearance of not only menial jobs, but middle-class ones as well—the kind of work that pays enough to fund a pension, a health-care plan, and a home mortgage. The deepening gloom over jobs runs deeper than robots. The rapidly spreading digital economy has reached critical mass, transforming industries and replacing workers of all kinds.
Think high-speed trading on Wall Street. The lightning-quick trades account for most of the volume on the major stock exchanges, yet the action is driven by computers and software communicating with other computers and software, supervised and monitored by at most a relative handful of highly compensated workers. (As a Wharton School report put it, “In the time it takes to read this sentence, tens of thousands of high-speed, computer-automated transactions can occur.”)
Lees (veel) meer:
http://www.businessweek.c(...)eate-economic-utopia
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
quote:'Financiële sector verliest tienduizenden banen'
Carla Kiburg van FNV Finance deelt de zorgen. ''Banken zijn instellingen die zwaar leunen op menskracht. Door technologie wordt een groot deel van dat mensenwerk overbodig gemaakt", aldus Kiburg. ''En voor de mensen die mogen blijven zitten, wordt de werkdruk opgevoerd."
Banken zijn volgens haar bezig aan een wedloop naar de bodem. Alles draait om de vergelijking tussen kosten en inkomsten.
Geld maakt meer kapot dan je lief is.
Het zijn sterke ruggen die vrijheid en weelde kunnen dragen
Het zijn sterke ruggen die vrijheid en weelde kunnen dragen
How robots are eating the last of America’s—and the world’s—traditional manufacturing jobs
Baxter, the affordable, humanoid industrial robot recently unveiled by Rethink Robotics, is so easy to program that I once did it one-handed and drunk. We were at a party at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and he was standing in the corner, looking lonely. No, really—Baxter has expressive eyes projected on a touchscreen where you’d expect it to have a face, virtually guaranteeing that you’ll anthropomorphize it.
Drink in hand, I walked over and, with only the vaguest sense of how to get it to respond to my touch, grabbed it by the wrist. I guided its “hand” over to a box full of small objects. Its caliper-like fingers closed on a widget. Then I moved its hand, which offered almost no resistance at all, to another position on the table. It dropped the object.
After that, it dutifully repeated the procedure I had taught it, again and again, emptying the box. In a display of the sort of capabilities that used to be almost impossible in robotics but are now routine, its machine vision allowed it to cope with the differences in position and shape of each of the widgets. Baxter was untroubled by the poor lighting, loud music or my clumsiness. In less time than it takes to update my calendar, I had, in essence, trained Baxter to pack a box for shipping, or to transfer goods from one conveyor belt to another—two tasks that are common in manufacturing and distribution centers.
Manufacturing’s end-game
Since the end of the second world war, the proportion of people in the US who are working in manufacturing has declined steadily, from nearly 40% during the war to less than 10% today:
Manufacturing as a share of total jobs in the US
Many have blamed this decline on outsourcing—the movement of factories to countries where labor is cheaper. And there’s no doubt that outsourcing has led to fewer factory jobs in the US and other rich countries.
And yet the US, like almost every other rich country on the planet, manufactures more stuff than it ever did. Manufacturers have replaced workers with machines—trading labor for capital. This means the manufacturing workers who remain are many times more productive than their forebears 50 years ago.
Baxter and robots like it represent an inflection point in the long trend of top-of-the-line manufacturing: The point at which the old system, in which unskilled laborers still have a place in factories, is retired forever. In addition to Baxter, new robots from ABB, Universal Robots, Nextage and Redwood Robotics are finally smart enough to tend other robots.
The end of apprenticeships
Even makers of robots—like Factory Automation Systems of Atlanta, GA—are replacing workers with automation.AP/David Goldman
To understand how this plays out in the real world, it’s worth reading economics journalist Adam Davidson’s account of the lives of two factory workers at a highly automated car parts factory in Greenville, South Carolina. One, “Maddie,” is an unskilled laborer, or a “Level 1,” whose job it is to place parts into a machine that performs a particular operation on them without any adjustment from a human. The other, Luke Hutchins, got a two-year degree at vocational school, and can operate machines that require a great deal of experience and mathematical acumen, including calculus.
Luke earns 50% more than Maddie, but here’s the really important detail: Maddie’s job, like that of all Level 1′s, is “machine tending.” She merely enables a machine to work. In a few months, says Rodney Brooks, founder of Rethink Robotics, his Baxter robot will get an updated version of its software that will allow it to do machine tending.
Baxter might not replace Maddie immediately, but it suggests that sooner rather than later, the only people working in factories in rich countries any longer will be those who had the time and money to get college degrees. Consider: a large slice of America’s middle class used to consist of people who had started out working in factories despite having only a high school degree. The machines they worked with were comprehensible enough that people could learn on the job, slowly advancing, perhaps all the way up the ladder into management. That path to a middle-class wage is almost gone—and may finally be eliminated altogether.
Hollowing out the global middle class
What has happened in manufacturing is part of a larger paradox at the heart of America’s economy, says Erik Brynjolfsson, director of MIT’s Center for Digital Business. “More wealth was created in the past 10 years than ever before in history,” he says, “Yet at the same time millions of people are being left behind. The median worker in the US is poorer now than in the mid-1990s.”
Not everyone is suffering. Skilled workers, for example, are earning more than ever. So are the very rich, those who own the capital that can be put to work in the world’s increasingly person-free farms, mines and factories. But those who used to make middle-class wages are increasingly slipping into lower-paying, service-sector jobs. That’s led to what MIT economist David Autor calls an “hourglass economy,” with more workers at both the top and (mostly) the bottom of the income spectrum.
Here’s a chart from a 2010 paper by Autor (pdf) showing how that’s played out for various professions in the US.
Percentage change in US employment by occupation, 1979–2009David Autor, MIT Department of Economics and National Bureau of Economic Research
Notice that the three left-most occupation categories, the skilled trades including managers, professionals and technicians, have either held on to or slightly increased their ranks, even during the 2007-2009 recession. The middle four categories—sales, office and administrative, production and repair, and operators, fabricators and laborers, all saw their numbers decimated during the recession. (In the case of manufacturing workers, this was a continuation of previous trends.) Finally, the service industries on the right, including protective services, food preparation and cleaning, and personal care and services all performed about as well as the highest-paid classes of labor in terms of jobs gained (though not, obviously, in terms of wages).
While Autor’s work is necessarily backward-looking, the trends he describes seem to have only accelerated in the past 10 years, especially in manufacturing. If you look at the absolute number of manufacturing jobs in the US, for example, they go off a cliff after 2000, suggesting that the waist of the “hourglass economy” is only going to get narrower.
Total number of people employed in the US in manufacturing.Federal Reserve of St. Louis
Here’s how Autor sums it up:
In 1979, the four middle-skill occupations—sales, office and administrative workers, production workers, and operators—accounted for 57.3 percent of employment. In 2007, this number was 48.6 percent, and in 2009, it was 45.7 percent. This sizable shift in job composition reflects three decades of employment growth at the tails of the occupational distribution.
Autor’s work shows that what’s happened to manufacturing is also happening to what economist Andrew McAfee calls routine cognitive workers, everyone from office secretaries who have been displaced by productivity software to librarians who lost their jobs to Google Search. Their plight is important to the larger story of the hourglass economy, but we’ll leave it for a future piece in Quartz’s ongoing obsession with the rise of the machines.
Coming soon, to a developing country near you
Welding robot, Guangzhou, China.AP/Kin Cheung
But wait, you say—what does this have to do with robots? What about China, the place where all those jobs are supposedly going? True, China has added manufacturing jobs over the past 15 years. But now it is getting on to the same path that the US and other rich countries are already much further down. Foxconn, which manufactures the iPhone and many other consumer electronics and is China’s largest private employer, has plans to install over a million manufacturing robots within three years. “Outsourcing is important,” says Brynjolfsson. “However my view is that technological change is much more important, especially in the long run. There’s a phrase I use to describe it: ‘offshoring is just a way-station on the road to automation.’”
Already, China is losing jobs to countries with even lower wages. But eventually, “you run out of places to chase the [cheap] labor,” says Rodney Brooks, chief technology officer of Rethink Robotics, which makes Baxter. While he believes that this means that eventually, rich countries will be forced to “re-shore” manufacturing capacity that they have sent overseas, it applies equally to developing countries: At some point, an aging population and ever-cheaper robots means that China’s factories will look a lot more like those in Japan, Germany and the US.
Training your non-human replacement
Baxter can learn tasks after being shown how to do them once.
“There may not be a place for humans in the future, if we’re really successful,” Brooks told filmmaker Errol Morris back when he was just a roboticist at MIT. Since then, Brooks has given up his tenured academic job, founded and then stepped away from iRobot, maker of the Roomba automatic vacuum cleaner, and now is at Rethink Robotics.
Most industrial robots are large, expensive (costing $100,000 or more), and so hazardous to humans that they must be kept separate from people by plexiglass cages. They are also expensive to maintain and difficult to direct. Over its lifetime, the care and programming of an industrial robot can easily cost its owner two or three times its initial price tag.
But Baxter, as I discovered at that party at MIT, is ridiculously easy to program. Like information technology before it, robots won’t become ubiquitous until they’re easy to use, says Brooks, and that’s what’s so innovative about the products of Rethink Robotics. “In general, if you look at the factory floor, ease of use of equipment has not been a focus of attention,” says Brooks. “But it has been in the IT industry, and we’d not be where we are if laptops weren’t easy to use. An ordinary factory worker can train Baxter to do a task in just minutes.”
In factories, managers typically will not invest in any automation that requires more than two years to pay for itself, when compared to some other solution, like paying a human to do it. But thanks to some very clever engineering, Baxter only costs $22,000. In the US, a person working full time at minimum wage makes only $15,080 a year.
Brooks argues that, in its current incarnation, Baxter isn’t capable enough to replace a human worker. “The robot is not a one-to-one replacement,” says Brooks. “We see it as a tool for ordinary workers to do better.” The goal of Rethink, says Brooks, is to bring manufacturing back to the US by replacing with automation some of the repetitive tasks that are currently shipped to China and other emerging markets.
However, notes Brynjolfsson, while Baxter might bring manufacturing back to the US, “it’s not clear it will bring a lot of manufacturing jobs back to the US.” Economists at the Minneapolis Fed agree with him. Even if robots could help bring jobs back to rich countries like the US, manufacturing is already so automated that the number of jobs that could be gained in that process would be “modest.”
This time it’s different?
Universal Robots’ 6-axis robot arms don’t require health insurance.
Whatever solutions we throw at the displacement of workers by machines, the coming decades could be difficult. “Economies don’t make these transitions well,” said Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Workers who can’t afford to forgo wages while they study or retrain can get stuck in unskilled, low-wage jobs, or simply end up jobless.
“As an economist, it’s not a bad thing when we get more stuff for less work,” says Brynjolfsson. “That’s what the system is designed to do. The issue is, can we reinvent and redesign our economic institutions to keep pace with this change so not all of the benefits accrue to a very small slice of people?”
Perhaps, as optimists like Kevin Kelly of Wired magazine suggest, the world is on the cusp of a revolution in localized, 3D-printed, custom manufacturing in which those who prosper will be those who are best at figuring out what to do with robots. But there is ample evidence that, in the meantime, the trend of ever more productive economies providing fewer middle-class jobs could continue.
http://qz.com/53710/robots-are-eating-manufacturing-jobs/
Baxter, the affordable, humanoid industrial robot recently unveiled by Rethink Robotics, is so easy to program that I once did it one-handed and drunk. We were at a party at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and he was standing in the corner, looking lonely. No, really—Baxter has expressive eyes projected on a touchscreen where you’d expect it to have a face, virtually guaranteeing that you’ll anthropomorphize it.
Drink in hand, I walked over and, with only the vaguest sense of how to get it to respond to my touch, grabbed it by the wrist. I guided its “hand” over to a box full of small objects. Its caliper-like fingers closed on a widget. Then I moved its hand, which offered almost no resistance at all, to another position on the table. It dropped the object.
After that, it dutifully repeated the procedure I had taught it, again and again, emptying the box. In a display of the sort of capabilities that used to be almost impossible in robotics but are now routine, its machine vision allowed it to cope with the differences in position and shape of each of the widgets. Baxter was untroubled by the poor lighting, loud music or my clumsiness. In less time than it takes to update my calendar, I had, in essence, trained Baxter to pack a box for shipping, or to transfer goods from one conveyor belt to another—two tasks that are common in manufacturing and distribution centers.
Manufacturing’s end-game
Since the end of the second world war, the proportion of people in the US who are working in manufacturing has declined steadily, from nearly 40% during the war to less than 10% today:
Manufacturing as a share of total jobs in the US
Many have blamed this decline on outsourcing—the movement of factories to countries where labor is cheaper. And there’s no doubt that outsourcing has led to fewer factory jobs in the US and other rich countries.
And yet the US, like almost every other rich country on the planet, manufactures more stuff than it ever did. Manufacturers have replaced workers with machines—trading labor for capital. This means the manufacturing workers who remain are many times more productive than their forebears 50 years ago.
Baxter and robots like it represent an inflection point in the long trend of top-of-the-line manufacturing: The point at which the old system, in which unskilled laborers still have a place in factories, is retired forever. In addition to Baxter, new robots from ABB, Universal Robots, Nextage and Redwood Robotics are finally smart enough to tend other robots.
The end of apprenticeships
Even makers of robots—like Factory Automation Systems of Atlanta, GA—are replacing workers with automation.AP/David Goldman
To understand how this plays out in the real world, it’s worth reading economics journalist Adam Davidson’s account of the lives of two factory workers at a highly automated car parts factory in Greenville, South Carolina. One, “Maddie,” is an unskilled laborer, or a “Level 1,” whose job it is to place parts into a machine that performs a particular operation on them without any adjustment from a human. The other, Luke Hutchins, got a two-year degree at vocational school, and can operate machines that require a great deal of experience and mathematical acumen, including calculus.
Luke earns 50% more than Maddie, but here’s the really important detail: Maddie’s job, like that of all Level 1′s, is “machine tending.” She merely enables a machine to work. In a few months, says Rodney Brooks, founder of Rethink Robotics, his Baxter robot will get an updated version of its software that will allow it to do machine tending.
Baxter might not replace Maddie immediately, but it suggests that sooner rather than later, the only people working in factories in rich countries any longer will be those who had the time and money to get college degrees. Consider: a large slice of America’s middle class used to consist of people who had started out working in factories despite having only a high school degree. The machines they worked with were comprehensible enough that people could learn on the job, slowly advancing, perhaps all the way up the ladder into management. That path to a middle-class wage is almost gone—and may finally be eliminated altogether.
Hollowing out the global middle class
What has happened in manufacturing is part of a larger paradox at the heart of America’s economy, says Erik Brynjolfsson, director of MIT’s Center for Digital Business. “More wealth was created in the past 10 years than ever before in history,” he says, “Yet at the same time millions of people are being left behind. The median worker in the US is poorer now than in the mid-1990s.”
Not everyone is suffering. Skilled workers, for example, are earning more than ever. So are the very rich, those who own the capital that can be put to work in the world’s increasingly person-free farms, mines and factories. But those who used to make middle-class wages are increasingly slipping into lower-paying, service-sector jobs. That’s led to what MIT economist David Autor calls an “hourglass economy,” with more workers at both the top and (mostly) the bottom of the income spectrum.
Here’s a chart from a 2010 paper by Autor (pdf) showing how that’s played out for various professions in the US.
Percentage change in US employment by occupation, 1979–2009David Autor, MIT Department of Economics and National Bureau of Economic Research
Notice that the three left-most occupation categories, the skilled trades including managers, professionals and technicians, have either held on to or slightly increased their ranks, even during the 2007-2009 recession. The middle four categories—sales, office and administrative, production and repair, and operators, fabricators and laborers, all saw their numbers decimated during the recession. (In the case of manufacturing workers, this was a continuation of previous trends.) Finally, the service industries on the right, including protective services, food preparation and cleaning, and personal care and services all performed about as well as the highest-paid classes of labor in terms of jobs gained (though not, obviously, in terms of wages).
While Autor’s work is necessarily backward-looking, the trends he describes seem to have only accelerated in the past 10 years, especially in manufacturing. If you look at the absolute number of manufacturing jobs in the US, for example, they go off a cliff after 2000, suggesting that the waist of the “hourglass economy” is only going to get narrower.
Total number of people employed in the US in manufacturing.Federal Reserve of St. Louis
Here’s how Autor sums it up:
In 1979, the four middle-skill occupations—sales, office and administrative workers, production workers, and operators—accounted for 57.3 percent of employment. In 2007, this number was 48.6 percent, and in 2009, it was 45.7 percent. This sizable shift in job composition reflects three decades of employment growth at the tails of the occupational distribution.
Autor’s work shows that what’s happened to manufacturing is also happening to what economist Andrew McAfee calls routine cognitive workers, everyone from office secretaries who have been displaced by productivity software to librarians who lost their jobs to Google Search. Their plight is important to the larger story of the hourglass economy, but we’ll leave it for a future piece in Quartz’s ongoing obsession with the rise of the machines.
Coming soon, to a developing country near you
Welding robot, Guangzhou, China.AP/Kin Cheung
But wait, you say—what does this have to do with robots? What about China, the place where all those jobs are supposedly going? True, China has added manufacturing jobs over the past 15 years. But now it is getting on to the same path that the US and other rich countries are already much further down. Foxconn, which manufactures the iPhone and many other consumer electronics and is China’s largest private employer, has plans to install over a million manufacturing robots within three years. “Outsourcing is important,” says Brynjolfsson. “However my view is that technological change is much more important, especially in the long run. There’s a phrase I use to describe it: ‘offshoring is just a way-station on the road to automation.’”
Already, China is losing jobs to countries with even lower wages. But eventually, “you run out of places to chase the [cheap] labor,” says Rodney Brooks, chief technology officer of Rethink Robotics, which makes Baxter. While he believes that this means that eventually, rich countries will be forced to “re-shore” manufacturing capacity that they have sent overseas, it applies equally to developing countries: At some point, an aging population and ever-cheaper robots means that China’s factories will look a lot more like those in Japan, Germany and the US.
Training your non-human replacement
Baxter can learn tasks after being shown how to do them once.
“There may not be a place for humans in the future, if we’re really successful,” Brooks told filmmaker Errol Morris back when he was just a roboticist at MIT. Since then, Brooks has given up his tenured academic job, founded and then stepped away from iRobot, maker of the Roomba automatic vacuum cleaner, and now is at Rethink Robotics.
Most industrial robots are large, expensive (costing $100,000 or more), and so hazardous to humans that they must be kept separate from people by plexiglass cages. They are also expensive to maintain and difficult to direct. Over its lifetime, the care and programming of an industrial robot can easily cost its owner two or three times its initial price tag.
But Baxter, as I discovered at that party at MIT, is ridiculously easy to program. Like information technology before it, robots won’t become ubiquitous until they’re easy to use, says Brooks, and that’s what’s so innovative about the products of Rethink Robotics. “In general, if you look at the factory floor, ease of use of equipment has not been a focus of attention,” says Brooks. “But it has been in the IT industry, and we’d not be where we are if laptops weren’t easy to use. An ordinary factory worker can train Baxter to do a task in just minutes.”
In factories, managers typically will not invest in any automation that requires more than two years to pay for itself, when compared to some other solution, like paying a human to do it. But thanks to some very clever engineering, Baxter only costs $22,000. In the US, a person working full time at minimum wage makes only $15,080 a year.
Brooks argues that, in its current incarnation, Baxter isn’t capable enough to replace a human worker. “The robot is not a one-to-one replacement,” says Brooks. “We see it as a tool for ordinary workers to do better.” The goal of Rethink, says Brooks, is to bring manufacturing back to the US by replacing with automation some of the repetitive tasks that are currently shipped to China and other emerging markets.
However, notes Brynjolfsson, while Baxter might bring manufacturing back to the US, “it’s not clear it will bring a lot of manufacturing jobs back to the US.” Economists at the Minneapolis Fed agree with him. Even if robots could help bring jobs back to rich countries like the US, manufacturing is already so automated that the number of jobs that could be gained in that process would be “modest.”
This time it’s different?
Universal Robots’ 6-axis robot arms don’t require health insurance.
Whatever solutions we throw at the displacement of workers by machines, the coming decades could be difficult. “Economies don’t make these transitions well,” said Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Workers who can’t afford to forgo wages while they study or retrain can get stuck in unskilled, low-wage jobs, or simply end up jobless.
“As an economist, it’s not a bad thing when we get more stuff for less work,” says Brynjolfsson. “That’s what the system is designed to do. The issue is, can we reinvent and redesign our economic institutions to keep pace with this change so not all of the benefits accrue to a very small slice of people?”
Perhaps, as optimists like Kevin Kelly of Wired magazine suggest, the world is on the cusp of a revolution in localized, 3D-printed, custom manufacturing in which those who prosper will be those who are best at figuring out what to do with robots. But there is ample evidence that, in the meantime, the trend of ever more productive economies providing fewer middle-class jobs could continue.
http://qz.com/53710/robots-are-eating-manufacturing-jobs/
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
quote:Killer robots must be stopped, say campaigners
'Autonomous weapons', which could be ready within a decade, pose grave risk to international law, claim activists
A new global campaign to persuade nations to ban "killer robots" before they reach the production stage is to be launched in the UK by a group of academics, pressure groups and Nobel peace prize laureates.
Robot warfare and autonomous weapons, the next step from unmanned drones, are already being worked on by scientists and will be available within the decade, said Dr Noel Sharkey, a leading robotics and artificial intelligence expert and professor at Sheffield University. He believes that development of the weapons is taking place in an effectively unregulated environment, with little attention being paid to moral implications and international law.
The Stop the Killer Robots campaign will be launched in April at the House of Commons and includes many of the groups that successfully campaigned to have international action taken against cluster bombs and landmines. They hope to get a similar global treaty against autonomous weapons.
"These things are not science fiction; they are well into development," said Sharkey. "The research wing of the Pentagon in the US is working on the X47B [unmanned plane] which has supersonic twists and turns with a G-force that no human being could manage, a craft which would take autonomous armed combat anywhere in the planet.
"In America they are already training more drone pilots than real aircraft pilots, looking for young men who are very good at computer games. They are looking at swarms of robots, with perhaps one person watching what they do."
Sharkey insists he is not anti-war but deeply concerned about how quickly science is moving ahead of the presumptions underlying the Geneva convention and the international laws of war.
"There are a lot of people very excited about this technology, in the US, at BAE Systems, in China, Israel and Russia, very excited at what is set to become a multibillion-dollar industry. This is going to be big, big money. But actually there is no transparency, no legal process. The laws of war allow for rights of surrender, for prisoner of war rights, for a human face to take judgments on collateral damage. Humans are thinking, sentient beings. If a robot goes wrong, who is accountable? Certainly not the robot."
He disputes the justification that deploying robot soldiers would potentially save lives of real soldiers. "Autonomous robotic weapons won't get tired, they won't seek revenge if their colleague is killed, but neither will my washing machine. No one on your side might get killed, but what effect will you be having on the other side, not just in lives but in attitudes and anger?
"The public is not being invited to have a view on the morals of all of this. We won't hear about it until China has sold theirs to Iran. That's why we are forming this campaign to look at a pre-emptive ban.
"The idea is that it's a machine that will find a target, decide if it is the right target and then kill it. No human involvement. Article 36 in the Geneva Convention says that any new weapon has to take into account whether it can distinguish and discriminate between combatant and civilian, but the problem here is that an autonomous robot is not a weapon until you clip on the gun."
At present, Sharkey says, there is no mechanism in a robot's "mind" to distinguish between a child holding up a sweet and an adult pointing a gun. "We are struggling to get them to distinguish between a human being and a car. We have already seen utter incompetence in the use of drones, operators making a lot of mistakes and not being properly supervised."
Last November the international campaign group Human Rights Watch produced a 50-page report, Losing Humanity: the Case Against Killer Robots, outlining concerns about fully autonomous weapons.
"Giving machines the power to decide who lives and dies on the battlefield would take technology too far," said Steve Goose, arms division director at Human Rights Watch. "Human control of robotic warfare is essential to minimising civilian deaths and injuries."
US political activist Jody Williams, who won a Nobel peace prize for her work at the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, is expected to join Sharkey at the launch at the House of Commons. Williams said she was confident that a pre-emptive ban on autonomous weapons could be achieved in the same way as the international embargo on anti-personnel landmines. "I know we can do the same thing with killer robots. I know we can stop them before they hit the battlefield," said Williams, who chairs the Nobel Women's Initiative.
"Killer robots loom over our future if we do not take action to ban them now," she said. "The six Nobel peace laureates involved in the Nobel Women's Initiative fully support the call for an international treaty to ban fully autonomous weaponised robots."
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
quote:Welcome the Robot Revolution, but Beware
Robots are evoking some deep economic anxiety these days. They’re routinely mastering human tasks -- driving cars, trading securities, diagnosing diseases - - that not long ago appeared permanently beyond their capabilities. And as automated technology advances at an exponential rate, more and more jobs, in more and more fields, will be done by intelligent machines in the very near future.
This transition will involve some scary trade-offs. Growth and productivity will probably accelerate, and low-cost, high- quality goods will probably proliferate. But many workers will find their skills obsolete and their ability to compete diminished. Unemployment could be exacerbated. Wage stagnation for the middle class could persist or worsen. And inequality seems likely to widen.
For all that, we remain optimistic. Throughout history, technology -- from the steam engine to electricity to the computer -- has upended old ways of doing business and created useful and edifying new fields of human endeavor. This long cycle of creative destruction suggests, however, that the robot revolution will be a time of significant turmoil. And that the more we prepare for it now, the better off we’ll be.
Be Flexible
As the digital economy churns through old industries, workers will need to become increasingly creative and open to change, and governments will need to grow more nimble in encouraging innovation and cushioning the blow for those left behind. As Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue in their book “Race Against the Machines,” the guiding principle for revamping public policy as this revolution unfolds is flexibility.
That means, first, preserving labor-market flexibility by fighting the urge to inhibit job losses in industries where robots will inevitably displace humans. A smarter way for the government to encourage hiring is to start shifting from taxes on employment, like the payroll tax, and toward taxes on consumption and pollution, like carbon. Investing in education, as always, will be critical. Expanded worker-training and placement programs would help ease the burden of changing jobs and better align workers’ skills with what employers need. And reforms that help make health-insurance policies more portable would be a boon to workers looking to try new fields.
Second, the government needs to do a better job of encouraging innovation. It may seem paradoxical that one way to mitigate the stresses of surging innovation is yet more innovation. But the key to the next economy will be people who can think of new fields, new applications and new businesses that robots can complement. Entrepreneurs will create whole new categories of jobs -- many of which we haven’t imagined yet -- by combining human ingenuity with the efficiency and precision of robot labor. Entrepreneurialism will thus become an increasingly essential skill.
Congress can help by resisting the urge to regulate new industries overzealously, keeping taxes on small businesses low and making it easier to start new companies. It should also reform the immigration system by expanding H-1B visas for temporary workers, ensuring that those who graduate from U.S. universities with advanced degrees in science, technology and math automatically qualify for green cards, and by creating a “startup visa” to encourage foreign entrepreneurs who have attracted investment or revenue in the U.S. to stay and create jobs.
Perhaps the best investment the government can make to encourage innovation for the robot economy is in research and development. That requires increased funding for government research centers, such as the National Science Foundation. More important, it means spurring private investment by making the R&D tax credit, which businesses use to help fund research projects, permanent. The credit has been perpetually at risk of expiring since its inception in 1981. Making it permanent would give companies an incentive to plan long-term research and would yield social and economic benefits that almost certainly exceed its cost to taxpayers.
Fixing Patents
Third, the outdated American patent system needs to be further overhauled to crack down on patent trolls while ensuring it remains accessible to independent inventors. The U.S. Patent and Trade Office should require more clarity from applicants for software patents, reject more infringement claims based on bogus patents, shorten patent terms and seek more input from outside experts. Such changes should encourage innovation rather than litigation.
Finally, robots will probably worsen inequality by shifting income from workers toward owners of capital. This process, known in economics as “capital-biased technological change,” is already under way: After holding roughly steady for decades, the share of income that accrues to labor declined markedly in the past 10 years, partly due to increased automation. One solution, as we’ve argued before, is to start taxing investment income at the same rate as wages, while eliminating or significantly reducing the corporate-income tax.
Another option is strengthening the social safety net, preferably in ways that increase the returns to low-paid work. The earned-income tax credit is one such program, and ought to be expanded. But orthodox redistribution alone will ultimately be insufficient, and if carried too far could be counterproductive.
Here’s a more radical idea. Fresh thinking is needed on how to give low-income workers a stake of their own in the nation’s stock of capital while shielding them from undue financial risk. Done right, an equity-based component in Social Security benefits would be a step in the right direction. Along the same lines, some have suggested that the children of poor families should be granted a modest portfolio of stocks at birth, with lockup provisions. The point is that we need to fundamentally rethink how the government addresses inequality in the new economy.
History suggests that as creative destruction works its ruthless magic, the efficiencies robots yield will eventually lead to new jobs, new discoveries, new ways of enjoying life. They may free us to do ever more satisfying work. But as Brynjolfsson and McAfee warn, “There is no economic law that says that everyone, or even most people, automatically benefit from technological progress.”
That’s one more reason to start preparing now. The robot revolution may be liberating, but it won’t be bloodless.
Geld maakt meer kapot dan je lief is.
Het zijn sterke ruggen die vrijheid en weelde kunnen dragen
Het zijn sterke ruggen die vrijheid en weelde kunnen dragen
2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030
Yesterday I was honored to be one of the featured speakers at the TEDxReset Conference in Istanbul, Turkey where I predicted that over 2 billion jobs will disappear by 2030. Since my 18-minute talk was about the rapidly shifting nature of colleges and higher education, I didn’t have time to explain how and why so many jobs would be going away. Because of all of the questions I received afterwards, I will do that here.
If you haven’t been to a TEDx event, it is hard to confer the life-changing nature of something like this. Ali Ustundag and his team pulled off a wonderful event.
The day was filled with an energizing mix of musicians, inspiration, and big thinkers. During the breaks, audience members were eager to hear more and peppered the speakers with countless questions. They were also extremely eager to hear more about the future.
When I brought up the idea of 2 billion jobs disappearing (roughly 50% of all the jobs on the planet) it wasn’t intended as a doom and gloom outlook. Rather, it was intended as a wakeup call, letting the world know how quickly things are about to change, and letting academia know that much of the battle ahead will be taking place at their doorstep.
Here is a brief overview of five industries – where the jobs will be going away and the jobs that will likely replace at least some of them – over the coming decades.
1.) Power Industry
Until now, the utility companies existed as a safe career path where little more than storm-related outages and an occasional rate increase would cause industry officials to raise their eyebrows.
Yet the public has become increasingly vocal about their concerns over long-term health and environmental issues relating to the current structure and disseminating methods of of the power industry, causing a number of ingenious minds to look for a better way of doing things.
Recently I was introduced to two solutions that seem predestined to start the proverbial row of dominoes to start falling. There are likely many more waiting in the wings, but these two capitalize on existing variances found in nature and are unusually elegant in the way they solve the problem of generating clean power at a low cost.
Both companies have asked me to keep quiet about their technology until they are a bit farther along, but I will at least explain the overarching ramifications.
I should emphasize that both technologies are intended to work inside the current utility company structure, so the changes will happen within the industry itself.
To begin with, these technologies will shift utilities around the world from national grids to micro grids that can be scaled from a single home to entire cities. The dirty power era will finally be over and the power lines that dangle menacingly over our neighborhoods, will begin to come down. All of them.
While the industry will go through a long-term shrinking trend, the immediate shift will cause many new jobs to be created.
Jobs Going Away
Power generation plants will begin to close down.
Coal plants will begin to close down.
Many railroad and transportation workers will no longer be needed.
Even wind farms, natural gas, and bio-fuel generators will begin to close down.
Ethanol plants will be phased out or repurposed.
Utility company engineers, gone.
Line repairmen, gone.
New Jobs Created
Manufacturing power generation units the size of ac units will go into full production.
Installation crews will begin to work around the clock.
The entire national grid will need to be taken down (a 20 year project). Much of it will be recycled and the recycling process alone will employ many thousands of people.
Micro-grid operations will open in every community requiring a new breed of engineers, managers, and regulators.
Many more.
2.) Automobile Transportation – Going Driverless
Over the next 10 years we will see the first wave of autonomous vehicles hit the roads, with some of the first inroads made by vehicles that deliver packages, groceries, and fast-mail envelopes.
The first wave of driverless vehicles will be luxury vehicles that allow you to kick back, listen to music, have a cup of coffee, stop wherever you need to along the way, stay productive in transit with connections to the Internet, make phone calls, and even watch a movie or two, for substantially less than the cost of today’s limos.
Driverless technology will initially require a driver, but it will quickly creep into everyday use much as airbags did. First as an expensive option for luxury cars, but eventually it will become a safety feature stipulated by the government.
The greatest benefits of this kind of automation won’t be realized until the driver’s hands are off the wheel. With over 2 million people involved in car accidents every year in the U.S., it won’t take long for legislators to be convinced that driverless cars are a substantially safer and more effective option.
The privilege of driving is about to be redefined.
Jobs Going Away
Taxi and limo drivers, gone.
Bus drivers, gone.
Truck drivers, gone.
Gas stations, parking lots, traffic cops, traffic courts, gone.
Fewer doctors and nurses will be needed to treat injuries.
Pizza (and other food) delivery drivers, gone.
Mail delivery drivers, gone.
FedEx and UPS delivery jobs, gone.
As people shift from owning their own vehicles to a transportation-on-demand system, the total number of vehicles manufactured will also begin to decline.
New Jobs Created
Delivery dispatchers
Traffic monitoring systems, although automated, will require a management team.
Automated traffic designers, architects, and engineers
Driverless “ride experience” people.
Driverless operating system engineers.
Emergency crews for when things go wrong.
3.) Education
The OpenCourseware Movement took hold in 2001 when MIT started recording all their courses and making them available for free online. They currently have over 2080 courses available that have been downloaded 131 million times.
In 2004 the Khan Academy was started with a clear and concise way of teaching science and math. Today they offer over 2,400 courses that have been downloaded 116 million times.
Now, the 8,000 pound gorilla in the OpenCourseware space is Apple’s iTunes U. This platform offers over 500,000 courses from 1,000 universities that have been downloaded over 700 million times. Recently they also started moving into the K-12 space.
All of these courses are free for anyone to take. So how do colleges, that charge steep tuitions, compete with “free”?
As the OpenCourseware Movement has shown us, courses are becoming a commodity. Teachers only need to teach once, record it, and then move on to another topic or something else.
In the middle of all this we are transitioning from a teaching model to a learning model. Why do we need to wait for a teacher to take the stage in the front of the room when we can learn whatever is of interest to us at any moment?
Teaching requires experts. Learning only requires coaches.
With all of the assets in place, we are moving quickly into the new frontier of a teacherless education system.
Jobs Going Away
Teachers.
Trainers.
Professors.
New Jobs Created
Coaches.
Course designers.
Learning camps.
Prototype of a 40′ X 40′ 3D Printer capable of printing a small building
4.) 3D Printers
Unlike a machine shop that starts with a large piece of metal and carves away everything but the final piece, 3D printing is an object creation technology where the shape of the objects are formed through a process of building up layers of material until all of the details are in place.
The first commercial 3D printer was invented by Charles Hull in 1984, based on a technique called stereolithography.
Three-dimensional printing makes it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands of items and thus undermines economies of scale. It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did during the Henry Ford era.
3D Printed Dress
3D Printed Shoes
Jobs Going Away
If we can print our own clothes and they fit perfectly, clothing manufacturers and clothing retailers will quickly go away.
Similarly, if we can print our own shoes, shoe manufacturers and shoe retailers will cease to be relevant.
If we can print construction material, the lumber, rock, drywall, shingle, concrete, and various other construction industries will go away.
New Jobs Created
3D printer design, engineering, and manufacturing
3D printer repairmen will be in big demand
Product designers, stylists, and engineers for 3D printers
3D printer ‘Ink’ sellers
http://www.futuristspeaker.com/wp-content/uploads/Dog-Bot-345.jpg
Boston Dynamics’ BigDog
5.) Bots
We are moving quickly past the robotic vacuum cleaner stage to far more complex machines.
The BigDog robot, shown above, is among the most impressive and potentially useful for troops in the immediate future–it’s being developed to act as an autonomous drone assistant that’ll carry gear for soldiers across rough battlefield terrain.
Nearly every physical task can conceivably be done by a robot at some point in the future.
Jobs Going Away
Fishing bots will replace fishermen.
Mining bots will replace miners.
Ag bots will replace farmers.
Inspection bots will replace human inspectors.
Warrior drones will replace soldiers.
Robots can pick up building material coming out of the 3D printer and begin building a house with it.
New Jobs Created
Robot designers, engineers, repairmen.
Robot dispatchers.
Robot therapists.
Robot trainers.
Robot fashion designers.
Final Thoughts
In these five industries alone there will be hundreds of millions of jobs disappearing. But many other sectors will also be affected.
Certainly there’s a downside to all this. The more technology we rely on, the more breaking points we’ll have in our lives.
Driverless drones can deliver people. These people can deliver bombs or illicit drugs as easily as pizza.
Robots that can build building can also destroy buildings.
All of this technology could make us fat, dumb, and lazy, and the problems we thought we were solving become far more complicated.
We are not well-equipped culturally and emotionally to have this much technology entering into our lives. There will be backlashes, “destroy the robots” or “damn the driverless car” campaigns with proposed legislation attempting to limit its influence.
At the same time, most of the jobs getting displaced are the low-level, low-skilled labor positions. Our challenge will be to upgrade our workforce to match the labor demand of the coming era. Although it won’t be an easy road ahead it will be one filled with amazing technology and huge potentials as the industries shift.
About the Author
Thomas Frey is the innovation editor for THE FUTURIST magazine and author of the book Communicating with the Future: How Re-engineering Intentions Will Alter the Master Code of Our Future.
This article was originally posted at Futuristspeaker.com
http://www.wfs.org/content/2-billion-jobs-disappear-2030
Yesterday I was honored to be one of the featured speakers at the TEDxReset Conference in Istanbul, Turkey where I predicted that over 2 billion jobs will disappear by 2030. Since my 18-minute talk was about the rapidly shifting nature of colleges and higher education, I didn’t have time to explain how and why so many jobs would be going away. Because of all of the questions I received afterwards, I will do that here.
If you haven’t been to a TEDx event, it is hard to confer the life-changing nature of something like this. Ali Ustundag and his team pulled off a wonderful event.
The day was filled with an energizing mix of musicians, inspiration, and big thinkers. During the breaks, audience members were eager to hear more and peppered the speakers with countless questions. They were also extremely eager to hear more about the future.
When I brought up the idea of 2 billion jobs disappearing (roughly 50% of all the jobs on the planet) it wasn’t intended as a doom and gloom outlook. Rather, it was intended as a wakeup call, letting the world know how quickly things are about to change, and letting academia know that much of the battle ahead will be taking place at their doorstep.
Here is a brief overview of five industries – where the jobs will be going away and the jobs that will likely replace at least some of them – over the coming decades.
1.) Power Industry
Until now, the utility companies existed as a safe career path where little more than storm-related outages and an occasional rate increase would cause industry officials to raise their eyebrows.
Yet the public has become increasingly vocal about their concerns over long-term health and environmental issues relating to the current structure and disseminating methods of of the power industry, causing a number of ingenious minds to look for a better way of doing things.
Recently I was introduced to two solutions that seem predestined to start the proverbial row of dominoes to start falling. There are likely many more waiting in the wings, but these two capitalize on existing variances found in nature and are unusually elegant in the way they solve the problem of generating clean power at a low cost.
Both companies have asked me to keep quiet about their technology until they are a bit farther along, but I will at least explain the overarching ramifications.
I should emphasize that both technologies are intended to work inside the current utility company structure, so the changes will happen within the industry itself.
To begin with, these technologies will shift utilities around the world from national grids to micro grids that can be scaled from a single home to entire cities. The dirty power era will finally be over and the power lines that dangle menacingly over our neighborhoods, will begin to come down. All of them.
While the industry will go through a long-term shrinking trend, the immediate shift will cause many new jobs to be created.
Jobs Going Away
Power generation plants will begin to close down.
Coal plants will begin to close down.
Many railroad and transportation workers will no longer be needed.
Even wind farms, natural gas, and bio-fuel generators will begin to close down.
Ethanol plants will be phased out or repurposed.
Utility company engineers, gone.
Line repairmen, gone.
New Jobs Created
Manufacturing power generation units the size of ac units will go into full production.
Installation crews will begin to work around the clock.
The entire national grid will need to be taken down (a 20 year project). Much of it will be recycled and the recycling process alone will employ many thousands of people.
Micro-grid operations will open in every community requiring a new breed of engineers, managers, and regulators.
Many more.
2.) Automobile Transportation – Going Driverless
Over the next 10 years we will see the first wave of autonomous vehicles hit the roads, with some of the first inroads made by vehicles that deliver packages, groceries, and fast-mail envelopes.
The first wave of driverless vehicles will be luxury vehicles that allow you to kick back, listen to music, have a cup of coffee, stop wherever you need to along the way, stay productive in transit with connections to the Internet, make phone calls, and even watch a movie or two, for substantially less than the cost of today’s limos.
Driverless technology will initially require a driver, but it will quickly creep into everyday use much as airbags did. First as an expensive option for luxury cars, but eventually it will become a safety feature stipulated by the government.
The greatest benefits of this kind of automation won’t be realized until the driver’s hands are off the wheel. With over 2 million people involved in car accidents every year in the U.S., it won’t take long for legislators to be convinced that driverless cars are a substantially safer and more effective option.
The privilege of driving is about to be redefined.
Jobs Going Away
Taxi and limo drivers, gone.
Bus drivers, gone.
Truck drivers, gone.
Gas stations, parking lots, traffic cops, traffic courts, gone.
Fewer doctors and nurses will be needed to treat injuries.
Pizza (and other food) delivery drivers, gone.
Mail delivery drivers, gone.
FedEx and UPS delivery jobs, gone.
As people shift from owning their own vehicles to a transportation-on-demand system, the total number of vehicles manufactured will also begin to decline.
New Jobs Created
Delivery dispatchers
Traffic monitoring systems, although automated, will require a management team.
Automated traffic designers, architects, and engineers
Driverless “ride experience” people.
Driverless operating system engineers.
Emergency crews for when things go wrong.
3.) Education
The OpenCourseware Movement took hold in 2001 when MIT started recording all their courses and making them available for free online. They currently have over 2080 courses available that have been downloaded 131 million times.
In 2004 the Khan Academy was started with a clear and concise way of teaching science and math. Today they offer over 2,400 courses that have been downloaded 116 million times.
Now, the 8,000 pound gorilla in the OpenCourseware space is Apple’s iTunes U. This platform offers over 500,000 courses from 1,000 universities that have been downloaded over 700 million times. Recently they also started moving into the K-12 space.
All of these courses are free for anyone to take. So how do colleges, that charge steep tuitions, compete with “free”?
As the OpenCourseware Movement has shown us, courses are becoming a commodity. Teachers only need to teach once, record it, and then move on to another topic or something else.
In the middle of all this we are transitioning from a teaching model to a learning model. Why do we need to wait for a teacher to take the stage in the front of the room when we can learn whatever is of interest to us at any moment?
Teaching requires experts. Learning only requires coaches.
With all of the assets in place, we are moving quickly into the new frontier of a teacherless education system.
Jobs Going Away
Teachers.
Trainers.
Professors.
New Jobs Created
Coaches.
Course designers.
Learning camps.
Prototype of a 40′ X 40′ 3D Printer capable of printing a small building
4.) 3D Printers
Unlike a machine shop that starts with a large piece of metal and carves away everything but the final piece, 3D printing is an object creation technology where the shape of the objects are formed through a process of building up layers of material until all of the details are in place.
The first commercial 3D printer was invented by Charles Hull in 1984, based on a technique called stereolithography.
Three-dimensional printing makes it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands of items and thus undermines economies of scale. It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did during the Henry Ford era.
3D Printed Dress
3D Printed Shoes
Jobs Going Away
If we can print our own clothes and they fit perfectly, clothing manufacturers and clothing retailers will quickly go away.
Similarly, if we can print our own shoes, shoe manufacturers and shoe retailers will cease to be relevant.
If we can print construction material, the lumber, rock, drywall, shingle, concrete, and various other construction industries will go away.
New Jobs Created
3D printer design, engineering, and manufacturing
3D printer repairmen will be in big demand
Product designers, stylists, and engineers for 3D printers
3D printer ‘Ink’ sellers
http://www.futuristspeaker.com/wp-content/uploads/Dog-Bot-345.jpg
Boston Dynamics’ BigDog
5.) Bots
We are moving quickly past the robotic vacuum cleaner stage to far more complex machines.
The BigDog robot, shown above, is among the most impressive and potentially useful for troops in the immediate future–it’s being developed to act as an autonomous drone assistant that’ll carry gear for soldiers across rough battlefield terrain.
Nearly every physical task can conceivably be done by a robot at some point in the future.
Jobs Going Away
Fishing bots will replace fishermen.
Mining bots will replace miners.
Ag bots will replace farmers.
Inspection bots will replace human inspectors.
Warrior drones will replace soldiers.
Robots can pick up building material coming out of the 3D printer and begin building a house with it.
New Jobs Created
Robot designers, engineers, repairmen.
Robot dispatchers.
Robot therapists.
Robot trainers.
Robot fashion designers.
Final Thoughts
In these five industries alone there will be hundreds of millions of jobs disappearing. But many other sectors will also be affected.
Certainly there’s a downside to all this. The more technology we rely on, the more breaking points we’ll have in our lives.
Driverless drones can deliver people. These people can deliver bombs or illicit drugs as easily as pizza.
Robots that can build building can also destroy buildings.
All of this technology could make us fat, dumb, and lazy, and the problems we thought we were solving become far more complicated.
We are not well-equipped culturally and emotionally to have this much technology entering into our lives. There will be backlashes, “destroy the robots” or “damn the driverless car” campaigns with proposed legislation attempting to limit its influence.
At the same time, most of the jobs getting displaced are the low-level, low-skilled labor positions. Our challenge will be to upgrade our workforce to match the labor demand of the coming era. Although it won’t be an easy road ahead it will be one filled with amazing technology and huge potentials as the industries shift.
About the Author
Thomas Frey is the innovation editor for THE FUTURIST magazine and author of the book Communicating with the Future: How Re-engineering Intentions Will Alter the Master Code of Our Future.
This article was originally posted at Futuristspeaker.com
http://www.wfs.org/content/2-billion-jobs-disappear-2030
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Allemaal leuk en aardig en robots/automatisering werkt op bepaalde vlakken erg goed:
- simpel productiewerk
- landbouw
- bouw
- berekeningen
Maar wat deze geniale, autistische nerds van MIT en andere hoogwaardige instituten niet begrijpen, is dat mensen behoefte hebben aan sociale cohesie, menselijk contact, menselijke interpretaties, meningen en adviezen. Dingen die robots simpelweg niet kunnen omdat dat juist menselijk is.
Daarbij ook marktwerking.
Stel je 2 hotels voor; het ene zoals we dat nu kennen, met schoonmakers, obers, receptiepersoneel, zwembadschoonmakers, badmeesters, massagesalons, taxichauffeurs, keukenpersoneel, de hele mikmak.
Het andere hotel wordt volledig gerund door robots:
- robots die de receptie doen
- robots die de kamers schoonmaken
- robots die massages verzorgen
- robots die in de gaten houden of kinderen niet verdrinken
- robots die de maaltijden produceren
- robots die de mensen rondrijden
- robots die het eten serveren
- etc.
- enz.
- usw.
Welk hotel zal succesvoller zijn denk je? In termen van marktwerking? Hoeveel mensen zouden ervoor kiezen te slapen in een "hotel" waar alles geautomatiseerd werkt? Die ene Japanner die liever geen mensen om zich heen heeft? Die nerd die bang is voor menselijk contact?
De gewone mens wil dit helemaal niet. Geen enkele menselijke interactie, nog los gezien van het feit dat mensen keuze willen hebben. Een robot kan niet die steak net zo lekker maken als een mens. Een robot die de kamer schoonmaakt kan geen onderscheid maken tussen "dat is vuil" en "de hotelgast heeft liever niet dat zijn bonnetjes weggegooid worden". Een robot kan niet inschatten of een kind gewoon lekker in het water springt of dat ie valt/verdrinkt, etc. etc. etc.
Mensen hebben geen behoefte aan die automatisering en door de marktwerking zal het er dan ook niet komen.
Je ziet het nu al bij callcenters, internetwinkels etc. Leiden die tot het verdwijnen van persoonlijk, menselijk contact? Welnee, die markt blijft gewoon bestaan. Mensen willen service, interactie, de mogelijkheid tot discussie. Dingen die met robots gewoon onmogelijk zijn.
Dan heb je nog de angst van mensen voor robots. We vinden het prima als ze op de achtergrond auto's bouwen of tomaten plukken. We vinden het niet prima als robots vliegtuigen gaan besturen. Zeker niet omdat robots nooit de menselijke slagkracht zullen hebben. Mensen zijn feilbaar, maar dat maakt ze juist aantrekkelijk voor andere mensen.
Allemaal dingen die qua intelligentie briljante mensen zoals de MIT-onderzoekers, autistische geleerden, niet begrijpen, wegwuiven of afdoen als "irrationele angsten". Sja, mensen zijn nou eenmaal niet 100% rationeel (wat robots nou juist wel zijn). Dat maakt ze juist interessant.
- simpel productiewerk
- landbouw
- bouw
- berekeningen
Maar wat deze geniale, autistische nerds van MIT en andere hoogwaardige instituten niet begrijpen, is dat mensen behoefte hebben aan sociale cohesie, menselijk contact, menselijke interpretaties, meningen en adviezen. Dingen die robots simpelweg niet kunnen omdat dat juist menselijk is.
Daarbij ook marktwerking.
Stel je 2 hotels voor; het ene zoals we dat nu kennen, met schoonmakers, obers, receptiepersoneel, zwembadschoonmakers, badmeesters, massagesalons, taxichauffeurs, keukenpersoneel, de hele mikmak.
Het andere hotel wordt volledig gerund door robots:
- robots die de receptie doen
- robots die de kamers schoonmaken
- robots die massages verzorgen
- robots die in de gaten houden of kinderen niet verdrinken
- robots die de maaltijden produceren
- robots die de mensen rondrijden
- robots die het eten serveren
- etc.
- enz.
- usw.
Welk hotel zal succesvoller zijn denk je? In termen van marktwerking? Hoeveel mensen zouden ervoor kiezen te slapen in een "hotel" waar alles geautomatiseerd werkt? Die ene Japanner die liever geen mensen om zich heen heeft? Die nerd die bang is voor menselijk contact?
De gewone mens wil dit helemaal niet. Geen enkele menselijke interactie, nog los gezien van het feit dat mensen keuze willen hebben. Een robot kan niet die steak net zo lekker maken als een mens. Een robot die de kamer schoonmaakt kan geen onderscheid maken tussen "dat is vuil" en "de hotelgast heeft liever niet dat zijn bonnetjes weggegooid worden". Een robot kan niet inschatten of een kind gewoon lekker in het water springt of dat ie valt/verdrinkt, etc. etc. etc.
Mensen hebben geen behoefte aan die automatisering en door de marktwerking zal het er dan ook niet komen.
Je ziet het nu al bij callcenters, internetwinkels etc. Leiden die tot het verdwijnen van persoonlijk, menselijk contact? Welnee, die markt blijft gewoon bestaan. Mensen willen service, interactie, de mogelijkheid tot discussie. Dingen die met robots gewoon onmogelijk zijn.
Dan heb je nog de angst van mensen voor robots. We vinden het prima als ze op de achtergrond auto's bouwen of tomaten plukken. We vinden het niet prima als robots vliegtuigen gaan besturen. Zeker niet omdat robots nooit de menselijke slagkracht zullen hebben. Mensen zijn feilbaar, maar dat maakt ze juist aantrekkelijk voor andere mensen.
Allemaal dingen die qua intelligentie briljante mensen zoals de MIT-onderzoekers, autistische geleerden, niet begrijpen, wegwuiven of afdoen als "irrationele angsten". Sja, mensen zijn nou eenmaal niet 100% rationeel (wat robots nou juist wel zijn). Dat maakt ze juist interessant.
The only limit is your own imagination
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Dat die printers goedkoper zouden zijn dan bulkproductie is nogal een bewering.quote:three-dimensional printing makes it as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands of items and thus undermines economies of scale. It may have as profound an impact on the world as the coming of the factory did during the Henry Ford era.
Vraag me bijzonder af waarop ze dat dan baseren. Want ik zie Bulkproductie nog steeds wel goedkoper zijn voor een heleboel producten. Te meer omdat het overgrote deel van de producten uit honderden verschillende materialen bestaat. Mensen niet iedere dag lopen te printen. En je die printer dus weinig gebruikt.
Het is heel leuk dat zo'n printer een stoel en een bord kan maken. Maar die koop je eens in de 10 jaar. Kleren printen is al gelijk een stuk lastiger en dat wordt dan meer een soort automatische naaimachine. (wat dan weer duur is want je hebt een appart apparaat nodig).
Chips en schermen worden op zo'n snelheid kleiner dat die ontwikkeling niet achterhaald gaat worden door printers.
Huizen hebben funderingen nodig. Mensen willen bakstenen. Heb je automatische robot graafmachines nodig. Dan moet je ze half kunstmatig intelligent hebben wil je dat lukken.
3D printers als concurrent van massaproductie is echt onzin volgens mij.
Het komt over alsof je de klok hebt horen luiden, maar niet weet waar de klepel hangt. Die laatste zin ook.... door de marktwerking zal het er niet komen.... Hoe kom je daar nou bij? Ik wil best geloven dat de meeste mensen het fijner vinden om in een hotel door mensen bediend te worden, maar wat als je nou twee hotels hebt zoals in jouw voorbeeld, waarbij de ene per nacht een stuk goedkoper is omdat er veel minder personeelskosten zijn?quote:Op dinsdag 2 april 2013 19:06 schreef El_Matador het volgende:
Allemaal leuk en aardig en robots/automatisering werkt op bepaalde vlakken erg goed:
- simpel productiewerk
- landbouw
- bouw
- berekeningen
Maar wat deze geniale, autistische nerds van MIT en andere hoogwaardige instituten niet begrijpen, is dat mensen behoefte hebben aan sociale cohesie, menselijk contact, menselijke interpretaties, meningen en adviezen. Dingen die robots simpelweg niet kunnen omdat dat juist menselijk is.
Daarbij ook marktwerking.
Stel je 2 hotels voor; het ene zoals we dat nu kennen, met schoonmakers, obers, receptiepersoneel, zwembadschoonmakers, badmeesters, massagesalons, taxichauffeurs, keukenpersoneel, de hele mikmak.
Het andere hotel wordt volledig gerund door robots:
- robots die de receptie doen
- robots die de kamers schoonmaken
- robots die massages verzorgen
- robots die in de gaten houden of kinderen niet verdrinken
- robots die de maaltijden produceren
- robots die de mensen rondrijden
- robots die het eten serveren
- etc.
- enz.
- usw.
Welk hotel zal succesvoller zijn denk je? In termen van marktwerking? Hoeveel mensen zouden ervoor kiezen te slapen in een "hotel" waar alles geautomatiseerd werkt? Die ene Japanner die liever geen mensen om zich heen heeft? Die nerd die bang is voor menselijk contact?
De gewone mens wil dit helemaal niet. Geen enkele menselijke interactie, nog los gezien van het feit dat mensen keuze willen hebben. Een robot kan niet die steak net zo lekker maken als een mens. Een robot die de kamer schoonmaakt kan geen onderscheid maken tussen "dat is vuil" en "de hotelgast heeft liever niet dat zijn bonnetjes weggegooid worden". Een robot kan niet inschatten of een kind gewoon lekker in het water springt of dat ie valt/verdrinkt, etc. etc. etc.
Mensen hebben geen behoefte aan die automatisering en door de marktwerking zal het er dan ook niet komen.
In dat geval zou marktwerking er juist voor zorgen dat een robothotel wel degelijk bestaansrecht heeft. Mensen boeken vliegtickets bij Easyjet omdat ze dan een paar tientjes goedkoper uit zijn en bij Easyjet ben je als klant nou niet echt koning. En toch hebben ze bestaansrecht en zijn ze zelfs de grootste vliegmaatschappij van Europa, dat terwijl het een kutmaatschappij is zonder service.
Er zal wel degelijk een grote markt zijn voor robothotels omdat deze nou eenmaal goedkoper de kamers kunnen aanbieden.
Weer zo'n idee dat je zomaar de wereld inslingert. Mensen die met de google zelfrijdende auto hebben gereden, die vonden het in eerste instantie vaak eng ja. Maar na een tijdje in die auto was die angst geheel verdwenen en had deze plaats gemaakt voor vertrouwen.quote:Dan heb je nog de angst van mensen voor robots. We vinden het prima als ze op de achtergrond auto's bouwen of tomaten plukken. We vinden het niet prima als robots vliegtuigen gaan besturen. Zeker niet omdat robots nooit de menselijke slagkracht zullen hebben. Mensen zijn feilbaar, maar dat maakt ze juist aantrekkelijk voor andere mensen.
Daarbij passen mensen zich makkelijk aan en dat zullen ze ook doen met robots die ons op het terras bedienen. Als mensen ergens goed in zijn, dan is het zich aanpassen aan nieuwe omstandigheden. Dat is wat ons evolutionair zo sterk heeft gemaakt: ons aanpassingsvermogen.
[ Bericht 0% gewijzigd door Probably_on_pcp op 02-04-2013 20:38:05 ]
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Nog een voorbeeld: wat te denken van de opkomst van het onbemand tanken de afgelopen 10-15 jaar? Dat 'menselijke contact' blijkt in de praktijk toch minder vereist zodra er geld bespaard kan worden.quote:
[..]
Het komt over alsof je de klok hebt horen luiden, maar niet weet waar de klepel hangt. Die laatste zin ook.... door de marktwerking zal het er niet komen.... Hoe kom je daar nou bij? Ik wil best geloven dat de meeste mensen het fijner vinden om in een hotel door mensen bediend te worden, maar wat als je nou twee hotels hebt zoals in jouw voorbeeld, waarbij de ene per nacht een stuk goedkoper is omdat er veel minder personeelskosten zijn?
In dat geval zou marktwerking er juist voor zorgen dat een robothotel wel degelijk bestaansrecht heeft. Mensen boeken vliegtickets bij Easyjet omdat ze dan een paar tientjes goedkoper uit zijn en bij Easyjet ben je als klant nou niet echt koning. En toch hebben ze bestaansrecht en zijn ze zelfs de grootste vliegmaatschappij van Europa, dat terwijl het een kutmaatschappij is zonder service.
Er zal wel degelijk een grote markt zijn voor robothotels omdat deze nou eenmaal goedkoper de kamers kunnen aanbieden.
[..]
Weer zo'n idee dat je zomaar de wereld inslingert. Mensen die met de google zelfrijdende auto hebben gereden, die vonden het in eerste instantie vaak eng ja. Maar na een tijdje in die auto was die angst geheel verdwenen en had deze plaats gemaakt voor vertrouwen.
Daarbij passen mensen zich makkelijk aan en dat zullen ze ook doen met robots die ons op het terras bedienen. Als mensen ergens goed in zijn, dan is het zich aanpassen aan nieuwe omstandigheden. Dat is wat ons evolutionair zo sterk heeft gemaakt: ons aanpassingsvermogen.
Veel van die snelweg hotels a la F1 zijn al bijna zonder personeel. Inchecken bij een automaat via credit card, je sleutel is een nummer, en voor de rest geen service.
Ja inderdaad, daar moest ik vandaag ook nog aan denkenquote:
[..]
Nog een voorbeeld: wat te denken van de opkomst van het onbemand tanken de afgelopen 10-15 jaar? Dat 'menselijke contact' blijkt in de praktijk toch minder vereist zodra er geld bespaard kan worden.
Veel van die snelweg hotels a la F1 zijn al bijna zonder personeel. Inchecken bij een automaat via credit card, je sleutel is een nummer, en voor de rest geen service.
Ben daar ooit eens 1 keer geweest en vond het wel apart dat de douches en toiletten automatisch worden schoongespoeld na gebruik. Daar komen idd geen mensen aan te pas.
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
In dat voorbeeld heeft El Matador het over het ontbreken van menselijk contact, maar vergeet je niet het contact tussen de klanten zelf? Die paar werknemers bij het 'menselijke' hotel gaat echt het verschil niet maken, zeker niet als die robot-hotel ook nog eens vele male goedkoper is.
Je kunt inderdaad niet alles automatiseren. Maar wel heel veel, en steeds meer.quote:
Allemaal leuk en aardig en robots/automatisering werkt op bepaalde vlakken erg goed:
- simpel productiewerk
- landbouw
- bouw
- berekeningen
Maar wat deze geniale, autistische nerds van MIT en andere hoogwaardige instituten niet begrijpen, is dat mensen behoefte hebben aan sociale cohesie, menselijk contact, menselijke interpretaties, meningen en adviezen. Dingen die robots simpelweg niet kunnen omdat dat juist menselijk is.
Daarbij ook marktwerking.
Stel je 2 hotels voor; het ene zoals we dat nu kennen, met schoonmakers, obers, receptiepersoneel, zwembadschoonmakers, badmeesters, massagesalons, taxichauffeurs, keukenpersoneel, de hele mikmak.
Het andere hotel wordt volledig gerund door robots:
- robots die de receptie doen
- robots die de kamers schoonmaken
- robots die massages verzorgen
- robots die in de gaten houden of kinderen niet verdrinken
- robots die de maaltijden produceren
- robots die de mensen rondrijden
- robots die het eten serveren
- etc.
- enz.
- usw.
Welk hotel zal succesvoller zijn denk je? In termen van marktwerking? Hoeveel mensen zouden ervoor kiezen te slapen in een "hotel" waar alles geautomatiseerd werkt? Die ene Japanner die liever geen mensen om zich heen heeft? Die nerd die bang is voor menselijk contact?
De gewone mens wil dit helemaal niet. Geen enkele menselijke interactie, nog los gezien van het feit dat mensen keuze willen hebben. Een robot kan niet die steak net zo lekker maken als een mens. Een robot die de kamer schoonmaakt kan geen onderscheid maken tussen "dat is vuil" en "de hotelgast heeft liever niet dat zijn bonnetjes weggegooid worden". Een robot kan niet inschatten of een kind gewoon lekker in het water springt of dat ie valt/verdrinkt, etc. etc. etc.
Mensen hebben geen behoefte aan die automatisering en door de marktwerking zal het er dan ook niet komen.
Je ziet het nu al bij callcenters, internetwinkels etc. Leiden die tot het verdwijnen van persoonlijk, menselijk contact? Welnee, die markt blijft gewoon bestaan. Mensen willen service, interactie, de mogelijkheid tot discussie. Dingen die met robots gewoon onmogelijk zijn.
Dan heb je nog de angst van mensen voor robots. We vinden het prima als ze op de achtergrond auto's bouwen of tomaten plukken. We vinden het niet prima als robots vliegtuigen gaan besturen. Zeker niet omdat robots nooit de menselijke slagkracht zullen hebben. Mensen zijn feilbaar, maar dat maakt ze juist aantrekkelijk voor andere mensen.
Allemaal dingen die qua intelligentie briljante mensen zoals de MIT-onderzoekers, autistische geleerden, niet begrijpen, wegwuiven of afdoen als "irrationele angsten". Sja, mensen zijn nou eenmaal niet 100% rationeel (wat robots nou juist wel zijn). Dat maakt ze juist interessant.
Wat jij hierbij lijkt te vergeten is de kosten. Verandert de keuze tussen die twee hotels als het ene hotel twee keer zo duur is wellicht?
Niemand zit te wachten op vervelende menu's van de telecomprovider als je naar de klantenservice belt, maar toch zijn ze er, omdat het gewoon zo duur is om iemand direct de telefoon op te laten nemen dat je zo niet rendabel kunt draaien. Mensen willen dat wel, maar ze willen er niet voor betalen.Daarnaast zijn er ook allerlei tussenwegen mogelijk.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Kosten is typisch een Nederlands verschijnsel. Echt niet in alle landen zijn ze zo extreem gefocussed op kosten als in Nederland.
Niets beter dan menselijke service. Een F1 hotel slaap je omdat je op doorreis bent en een bed en douche nodig hebt, echt niet voor een business-trip, vakantie of een weekendje weg.
Dat er mensen zijn die snel omschakelen naar robots versus mensen ontken ik dan ook niet. Het is echter wel een grove overschatting te denken dat die markt enorm groot is.
Dingen die makkelijk geautomatiseerd kunnen worden, lopen nu ook al aardig. Bol.com, Tango, etc.
Maar zoveel zaken zijn niet zo en blijft ernaast nog een hele markt bestaan die niet draait om die typisch Nederlandse zunigheid, maar om meer aspecten.
Het hele idee van een auto is nu juist die vrijheid. Of zelfs van een taxi, waar je een taxichauf kan zeggen: "ehh, ik wil graag naar Station Sloterdijk, maar kunt u eerst even langs Oud-Zuid, even kijken of een vriend thuis is. Zoniet, dan gelijk door, anders wachten we even op hem." Voor een simpele robot is dit al onmogelijk. Voor een meer geavanceerde is het wel weer te doen, maar dit voorbeeld is extreem simplistisch. Stel nou dat de commando's moeilijker worden, dan legt elke robot het af tegen menselijke interactie.
Het probleem van de Wij-van-WC-eend gasten is nu juist dat ze die denktrant niet kunnen dan wel niet willen maken. En dan ook de mens de "schuld" geven, alsof de robots gelijk hebben en de mens die daar niet aanwil een achterlijke holbewoner is. Dat is de omgekeerde wereld.
Niets beter dan menselijke service. Een F1 hotel slaap je omdat je op doorreis bent en een bed en douche nodig hebt, echt niet voor een business-trip, vakantie of een weekendje weg.
Dat er mensen zijn die snel omschakelen naar robots versus mensen ontken ik dan ook niet. Het is echter wel een grove overschatting te denken dat die markt enorm groot is.
Dingen die makkelijk geautomatiseerd kunnen worden, lopen nu ook al aardig. Bol.com, Tango, etc.
Maar zoveel zaken zijn niet zo en blijft ernaast nog een hele markt bestaan die niet draait om die typisch Nederlandse zunigheid, maar om meer aspecten.
Het hele idee van een auto is nu juist die vrijheid. Of zelfs van een taxi, waar je een taxichauf kan zeggen: "ehh, ik wil graag naar Station Sloterdijk, maar kunt u eerst even langs Oud-Zuid, even kijken of een vriend thuis is. Zoniet, dan gelijk door, anders wachten we even op hem." Voor een simpele robot is dit al onmogelijk. Voor een meer geavanceerde is het wel weer te doen, maar dit voorbeeld is extreem simplistisch. Stel nou dat de commando's moeilijker worden, dan legt elke robot het af tegen menselijke interactie.
Het probleem van de Wij-van-WC-eend gasten is nu juist dat ze die denktrant niet kunnen dan wel niet willen maken. En dan ook de mens de "schuld" geven, alsof de robots gelijk hebben en de mens die daar niet aanwil een achterlijke holbewoner is. Dat is de omgekeerde wereld.
The only limit is your own imagination
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Je gaat voorbij aan dat de techniek steeds verder gaat en ook AI enorme sprongen maakt (uiteraard nog lang niet op menselijk niveau) Er zijn zaken die nu geautomatiseerd zijn wat 10 jaar terug ondenkbaar was en over weer 10 jaar zullen we hetzelfde zeggen en weer 10 jaar verder ......etc
Je onderschat de mogelijkheden van AI denk ik sowieso. Daarnaast is het natuurlijk onzin om te denken dat buiten Nederland mensen wel graag twee keer zo veel betalen voor iets.quote:
Kosten is typisch een Nederlands verschijnsel. Echt niet in alle landen zijn ze zo extreem gefocussed op kosten als in Nederland.
Niets beter dan menselijke service. Een F1 hotel slaap je omdat je op doorreis bent en een bed en douche nodig hebt, echt niet voor een business-trip, vakantie of een weekendje weg.
Dat er mensen zijn die snel omschakelen naar robots versus mensen ontken ik dan ook niet. Het is echter wel een grove overschatting te denken dat die markt enorm groot is.
Dingen die makkelijk geautomatiseerd kunnen worden, lopen nu ook al aardig. Bol.com, Tango, etc.
Maar zoveel zaken zijn niet zo en blijft ernaast nog een hele markt bestaan die niet draait om die typisch Nederlandse zunigheid, maar om meer aspecten.
Het hele idee van een auto is nu juist die vrijheid. Of zelfs van een taxi, waar je een taxichauf kan zeggen: "ehh, ik wil graag naar Station Sloterdijk, maar kunt u eerst even langs Oud-Zuid, even kijken of een vriend thuis is. Zoniet, dan gelijk door, anders wachten we even op hem." Voor een simpele robot is dit al onmogelijk. Voor een meer geavanceerde is het wel weer te doen, maar dit voorbeeld is extreem simplistisch. Stel nou dat de commando's moeilijker worden, dan legt elke robot het af tegen menselijke interactie.
Het probleem van de Wij-van-WC-eend gasten is nu juist dat ze die denktrant niet kunnen dan wel niet willen maken. En dan ook de mens de "schuld" geven, alsof de robots gelijk hebben en de mens die daar niet aanwil een achterlijke holbewoner is. Dat is de omgekeerde wereld.
Denk jij dat ze in Zuid-Amerika, China, India etc. allemaal graag 20% meer betalen voor hun boodschappeen als er een menselijke cassière is die hallo zegt? Ik denk het niet hoor.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Ik ga daar helemaal niet aan voorbij. Ik betrek alleen het menselijke aspect erin. Juist dat wat de typische autistische nerds vergeten.
En dat is beperkt; er zijn legio voorbeelden van in het verleden aangeboden technische snufjes die lang niet de hele maatschappij veranderd hebben.
Een simpel voorbeeld is de magnetron. Men dacht bij de introductie ervan ook dat iedereen alleen nog maar magnetronvoedsel zou eten. En ja, de nerds doen dat inderdaad. De meeste mensen echter hechten belang aan smaak, zelf koken en gezonde verse voeding.
Daarbij het verschil tussen automatisering en robotica. Robots worden lang niet op alle terreinen geaccepteerd. Ja, voor automatische processen die ik al aanhaalde in mijn eerste bericht van vandaag.
Maar dat er binnen een schamele 20 jaar 2 miljard banen zouden "verdwijnen" is echt complete bullshit. Sowieso heeft automatisering ook een hele hoop nadelen die opgevangen moeten worden door echte mensen anders loopt de boel in de soep. Denk aan het OV-chipkaartverhaal, zo'n prachtig voorbeeld van 100% automatisering, toch? Geen conducteurs meer nodig, was het idee. Volgens mij bestaan ze nog steeds. In mindere mate, maar daar ga je echt geen 2 miljard (!!) banen wereldwijd mee "verliezen".
En dat is beperkt; er zijn legio voorbeelden van in het verleden aangeboden technische snufjes die lang niet de hele maatschappij veranderd hebben.
Een simpel voorbeeld is de magnetron. Men dacht bij de introductie ervan ook dat iedereen alleen nog maar magnetronvoedsel zou eten. En ja, de nerds doen dat inderdaad. De meeste mensen echter hechten belang aan smaak, zelf koken en gezonde verse voeding.
Daarbij het verschil tussen automatisering en robotica. Robots worden lang niet op alle terreinen geaccepteerd. Ja, voor automatische processen die ik al aanhaalde in mijn eerste bericht van vandaag.
Maar dat er binnen een schamele 20 jaar 2 miljard banen zouden "verdwijnen" is echt complete bullshit. Sowieso heeft automatisering ook een hele hoop nadelen die opgevangen moeten worden door echte mensen anders loopt de boel in de soep. Denk aan het OV-chipkaartverhaal, zo'n prachtig voorbeeld van 100% automatisering, toch? Geen conducteurs meer nodig, was het idee. Volgens mij bestaan ze nog steeds. In mindere mate, maar daar ga je echt geen 2 miljard (!!) banen wereldwijd mee "verliezen".
The only limit is your own imagination
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Waarom denk je dat er al die distopische films gemaakt zijn? Mensen hebben geen behoefte aan een wereld gedomineerd door robots. Daar waar ze inzetbaar zijn; simpele productie, zijn ze prima inzetbaar. Echter dat de hele samenleving (want dat is wat je nodig hebt als je 2 miljard banen (50% zegt die man!) laat verdwijnen) zou overstappen op robotisering is echt onzin.
The only limit is your own imagination
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Totoaal kromme vergelijking wat je aanhaalt over de magnetron. Dat is gewoon maar een specifiek product, met allerlei beperkingen.quote:
Ik ga daar helemaal niet aan voorbij. Ik betrek alleen het menselijke aspect erin. Juist dat wat de typische autistische nerds vergeten.
En dat is beperkt; er zijn legio voorbeelden van in het verleden aangeboden technische snufjes die lang niet de hele maatschappij veranderd hebben.
Een simpel voorbeeld is de magnetron. Men dacht bij de introductie ervan ook dat iedereen alleen nog maar magnetronvoedsel zou eten. En ja, de nerds doen dat inderdaad. De meeste mensen echter hechten belang aan smaak, zelf koken en gezonde verse voeding.
Daarbij het verschil tussen automatisering en robotica. Robots worden lang niet op alle terreinen geaccepteerd. Ja, voor automatische processen die ik al aanhaalde in mijn eerste bericht van vandaag.
Maar dat er binnen een schamele 20 jaar 2 miljard banen zouden "verdwijnen" is echt complete bullshit. Sowieso heeft automatisering ook een hele hoop nadelen die opgevangen moeten worden door echte mensen anders loopt de boel in de soep. Denk aan het OV-chipkaartverhaal, zo'n prachtig voorbeeld van 100% automatisering, toch? Geen conducteurs mzen".
Als je kijkt naar hoe ons eten nu geproduceerd wordt ten opzichte van enkele decennia geleden, het kan heel snel gaan. Feit is gewoon dat als een bepaalde vorm van automatisering goed en prettig werkt, en het goedkoper is, mensen het op termijn vanzelf wel gaan accepteren.
Dat betekent niet dat je geen mensen meer nodig hebt, maar wel veel minder mensen. Dat is hoe technologische vooruitgang onze welvaart vergroot: hogere productiviteit.
Sociaal contact heb je met je vrienden, niet met een medewerker van een tankstation. Die waardeer je simpelweg niet genoeg om veel meer voor je benzine te betalen om die man aan het werk te houden.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Wat ik mij afvraag is of automatisering tbv het drukken van de kosten en daarmee de marge te vergroten niet aan z'n doel voorbij gaat.
Een robot consumeert niet. Vervang je personeel met robots dan verdampt er consumptie wanneer het ontslagen personeel werkloos raakt. Minder consumptie is weer minder omzet. De marge die je won met het inzetten van een robot gaat weer verloren als je de prijzen moet verlagen zodat mensen de producten kunnen blijven kopen.
Je kan wel focussen op kosten drukken en totale productie, maar wat heb je aan productie zonder afnemers? Als werkelijk elke baan in de wereld geautomatiseerd zou worden, en de mensheid zonder werk zou komen te zitten, wat voor financieel systeem moeten we dan gaan introduceren opdat de mens de geproduceerde artikelen nog kan aanschaffen? En wie profiteert er van de omzet?
Een robot consumeert niet. Vervang je personeel met robots dan verdampt er consumptie wanneer het ontslagen personeel werkloos raakt. Minder consumptie is weer minder omzet. De marge die je won met het inzetten van een robot gaat weer verloren als je de prijzen moet verlagen zodat mensen de producten kunnen blijven kopen.
Je kan wel focussen op kosten drukken en totale productie, maar wat heb je aan productie zonder afnemers? Als werkelijk elke baan in de wereld geautomatiseerd zou worden, en de mensheid zonder werk zou komen te zitten, wat voor financieel systeem moeten we dan gaan introduceren opdat de mens de geproduceerde artikelen nog kan aanschaffen? En wie profiteert er van de omzet?
Dit vind ik echt volstrekte onzin. Er wordt nu al zo verschrikkelijk veel geautomatiseerd wat niet te classificeren is als simpele productie.quote:
Waarom denk je dat er al die distopische films gemaakt zijn? Mensen hebben geen behoefte aan een wereld gedomineerd door robots. Daar waar ze inzetbaar zijn; simpele productie, zijn ze prima inzetbaar.
Je hebt echt een achterhaald beeld.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Mijn goed El Matador, ik heb net nog een post van mij aangepast om iets vriendelijker over te komen naar jou, maar wat een gewauwel komt er uit jouw mond af en toe zeg.
Omdat magnetrons niet zo populair zijn geworden als men eerst dacht, haal jij dat aan als een reden dat mensen robots en automatisering niet zomaar overal accepteren... wat een domme beredenering zeg.
Omdat magnetrons niet zo populair zijn geworden als men eerst dacht, haal jij dat aan als een reden dat mensen robots en automatisering niet zomaar overal accepteren... wat een domme beredenering zeg.
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Zo werkt dat natuurlijk niet, mensen kunnen en moeten dingen gaan doen waar wel vraag naar is. De prijzen kunnen juist verlaagd worden door dalende kosten. Vroeger was bijna iedereen bezig met het zorgen dat we allemaal te eten hadden, tegenwoordig maar enkele procenten van de bevolking. En we geven daar ook een steeds kleiner deell van ons geld aan uit. Wat er precies allemaal in de toekomst ligt kunnen we niet voorspellen, maar dit is gewoon hoe vooruitgang plaatsvindt. Maar heel veel van ons doen werk wat 100 jaar geleden niet bestond, niet kon bestaan en wat men toen niet kon voorzien. Natuurlijk is het kut als jij met paard en wagen mensen vervoert en er komen auto's, maar dan heb je gewoon pech en ga je maar iets anders doen.quote:
Wat ik mij afvraag is of automatisering tbv het drukken van de kosten en daarmee de marge te vergroten niet aan z'n doel voorbij gaat.
Een robot consumeert niet. Vervang je personeel met robots dan verdampt er consumptie wanneer het ontslagen personeel werkloos raakt. Minder consumptie is weer minder omzet. De marge die je won met het inzetten van een robot gaat weer verloren als je de prijzen moet verlagen zodat mensen de producten kunnen blijven kopen.
Je kan wel focussen op kosten drukken en totale productie, maar wat heb je aan productie zonder afnemers? Als werkelijk elke baan in de wereld geautomatiseerd zou worden, en de mensheid zonder werk zou komen te zitten, wat voor financieel systeem moeten we dan gaan introduceren opdat de mens de geproduceerde artikelen nog kan aanschaffen? En wie profiteert er van de omzet?
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Er komt inderdaad een omslagpunt dat de kosten en prijzen dalen. En juist op dat moment komt de concurrentie van menselijke hotels weer opzetten; mensen zijn dan immers goedkoop in te huren en de klanten komen naar jouw hotel omdat ze dat waarderen.
Easyjet de grootste vliegmaatschappij van Europa? Heb je een bron?
En ook daar geldt hetzelfde; voor korte vluchtjes werkt dat inderdaad. Voor langere vluchten niet meer. En er zijn genoeg mensen die weigeren met dat soort maatschappijen te vliegen.
Ik heb nergens de automatisering ontkend. Ik stel alleen dat er altijd een menselijke markt overblijft, want dat is hoe mensen nu eenmaal in elkaar zitten.
Easyjet de grootste vliegmaatschappij van Europa? Heb je een bron?
En ook daar geldt hetzelfde; voor korte vluchtjes werkt dat inderdaad. Voor langere vluchten niet meer. En er zijn genoeg mensen die weigeren met dat soort maatschappijen te vliegen.
Ik heb nergens de automatisering ontkend. Ik stel alleen dat er altijd een menselijke markt overblijft, want dat is hoe mensen nu eenmaal in elkaar zitten.
The only limit is your own imagination
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
Ik ben niet gelovig aangelegd en maak daarin geen onderscheid tussen dominees, imams, scharenslieps, autohandelaren, politici en massamedia
Waarom er geen vliegtuig in het WTC vloog
We hebben dan geen financieel systeem meer nodig. We hebben dan alleen het internet nodig om te bepalen wat er waar nodig is.quote:
Wat ik mij afvraag is of automatisering tbv het drukken van de kosten en daarmee de marge te vergroten niet aan z'n doel voorbij gaat.
Een robot consumeert niet. Vervang je personeel met robots dan verdampt er consumptie wanneer het ontslagen personeel werkloos raakt. Minder consumptie is weer minder omzet. De marge die je won met het inzetten van een robot gaat weer verloren als je de prijzen moet verlagen zodat mensen de producten kunnen blijven kopen.
Je kan wel focussen op kosten drukken en totale productie, maar wat heb je aan productie zonder afnemers? Als werkelijk elke baan in de wereld geautomatiseerd zou worden, en de mensheid zonder werk zou komen te zitten, wat voor financieel systeem moeten we dan gaan introduceren opdat de mens de geproduceerde artikelen nog kan aanschaffen? En wie profiteert er van de omzet?
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Niemand denkt ook dat *alle* banen verdwijnen; de vraag is alleen of er genoeg banen overblijven voor het aantal mensen.quote:
Ik heb nergens de automatisering ontkend. Ik stel alleen dat er altijd een menselijke markt overblijft, want dat is hoe mensen nu eenmaal in elkaar zitten.
Niemand beweert toch dat we helemaal geen mensen meer nodig zullen hebben?quote:
Er komt inderdaad een omslagpunt dat de kosten en prijzen dalen. En juist op dat moment komt de concurrentie van menselijke hotels weer opzetten; mensen zijn dan immers goedkoop in te huren en de klanten komen naar jouw hotel omdat ze dat waarderen.
Easyjet de grootste vliegmaatschappij van Europa? Heb je een bron?
En ook daar geldt hetzelfde; voor korte vluchtjes werkt dat inderdaad. Voor langere vluchten niet meer. En er zijn genoeg mensen die weigeren met dat soort maatschappijen te vliegen.
Ik heb nergens de automatisering ontkend. Ik stel alleen dat er altijd een menselijke markt overblijft, want dat is hoe mensen nu eenmaal in elkaar zitten.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Treffende vergelijkingquote:
[..]
Zo werkt dat natuurlijk niet, mensen kunnen en moeten dingen gaan doen waar wel vraag naar is. De prijzen kunnen juist verlaagd worden door dalende kosten. Vroeger was bijna iedereen bezig met het zorgen dat we allemaal te eten hadden, tegenwoordig maar enkele procenten van de bevolking. En we geven daar ook een steeds kleiner deell van ons geld aan uit. Wat er precies allemaal in de toekomst ligt kunnen we niet voorspellen, maar dit is gewoon hoe vooruitgang plaatsvindt. Maar heel veel van ons doen werk wat 100 jaar geleden niet bestond, niet kon bestaan en wat men toen niet kon voorzien. Natuurlijk is het kut als jij met paard en wagen mensen vervoert en er komen auto's, maar dan heb je gewoon pech en ga je maar iets anders doen.
Alleen moet dan de ontwikkeling van nieuwe banen wel gelijk lopen met de automatisering, en die verhouding lijkt vooralsnog scheef te gaan. Vooral wat er qua simpel werk overblijft; robots poetsen?
Banen zijn er niet om mensen bezig te houden, banen zijn er omdat er vraag is naar arbeid.quote:
Niemand denkt ook dat *alle* banen verdwijnen; de vraag is alleen of er genoeg banen overblijven voor het aantal mensen.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Ik denk niet dat we zo'n toekomst nog gaan meemaken. Op lange termijn is alles natuurlijk mogelijk, maar ik denk dat de mensheid te lang met geld hebben gewerkt om binnen afzienbare tijd een wereld zonder geld te accepteren.quote:
[..]
We hebben dan geen financieel systeem meer nodig. We hebben dan alleen het internet nodig om te bepalen wat er waar nodig is.
Het is sowieso een grote teringzooi omdat de vrije markt compleet de nek om gedraaid is.quote:
[..]
Treffende vergelijking
Alleen moet dan de ontwikkeling van nieuwe banen wel gelijk lopen met de automatisering, en die verhouding lijkt vooralsnog scheef te gaan. Vooral wat er qua simpel werk overblijft; robots poetsen?
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
Oh ik bedoelde Ryanair, maar dat is toch allemaal 1 pot natquote:
Easyjet de grootste vliegmaatschappij van Europa? Heb je een bron?
En met Europa bedoel ik passagiersaantallen in Europa.
En die bron kan ik zo niet vinden, geen zin ook om op te zoeken.
"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
En dan krijgt iedereen hetzelfde? Soort communistisch systeem? Want mensheid zit altijd wel zo in elkaar nog dat de één meer wil dan de ander. Dat kan nu door meer te werken, of een hogere functie, maar in een wereld zonder menselijk arbeid? Kastensysteem?quote:
[..]
We hebben dan geen financieel systeem meer nodig. We hebben dan alleen het internet nodig om te bepalen wat er waar nodig is.
Nou, de maatschappij wordt wel ernstig ontwricht wanneer teveel mensen thuis zitten te niksen en zich nutteloos voelen. Om over de onbetaalbare uitkeringen nog maar te zwijgen. Wat dat betreft is het maatschappelijk wenselijk dat in elk geval het overgrote deel van de bevolking een baan heeft.quote:
[..]
Banen zijn er niet om mensen bezig te houden, banen zijn er omdat er vraag is naar arbeid.
Wat bedoel je precies met een financiëel systeem? Een 'medium of exchange' is gewoon onmisbaar in het economisch verkeer.quote:
[..]
We hebben dan geen financieel systeem meer nodig. We hebben dan alleen het internet nodig om te bepalen wat er waar nodig is.
As the officer took her away, she recalled that she asked,
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
"Why do you push us around?"
And she remembered him saying,
"I don't know, but the law's the law, and you're under arrest."
| Forum Opties | |
|---|---|
| Forumhop: | |
| Hop naar: | |