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
