The value drop off on human attraction

in StemSocial2 months ago (edited)

As you are probably aware if you are a regular reader of my blog, is that I believe that we will eventually all be largely replaced by various forms of automation - whether it be through machines like the completely cab-less combine harvesters that reap the fields, or an artificial intelligence that thinks better than we do - our days as the smartest on earth are numbered.

The first misconception that people have about AI is that it needs to be the best at something, this is not the case, it just has to be on average better, and through the consistency of delivery, this isn't very hard to accomplish - robots are consistent and systematic, humans are systematically volatile and erratic - on average.

The second is that even though many think that a general intelligence machine that can compete at all levels might be impossible, a narrow AI that processes a narrow field isn't. What this means is that like the lions that join to create Voltron, these narrow intelligences can be combined to build a collaborative brain that would very much seem like a general level intelligence. Due to the processing power, speed and volume of data it can consume, evaluate, hypothesize upon and test through millions of simulations at a very low relative cost, it will be enough to push us all out of the markets eventually.

Even the manual labor levels like massage could be AI simulated and probably even deemed acceptable and appropriate, considering that people are already buying sex robots and watching animated AI porn - that points to a wiki for Projekt Melody, so it is deemed SFW and the only viral STD you might catch is one that steals your keys. You like I, might find it strange that someone would enjoy this kind of thing, but if you consider that millennials are raised to have relationships through screens, it is quite an obvious progression - I will leave this for another post though.

Suffice to say, we are eventually all going to be replaced in the workforce at some level (many people entirely) by some form of non-human entity - and they will do our job better than we can.

IMG_20200804_143436.jpg

While this raises all kinds of economic and financial questions in the way we organize our world, it also raises some very human questions in regard to what we do. The reason is that for 2 million years most of the skills we have developed are geared toward doing a job that offers some kind of explicit or intrinsic value to others within the community. Through these tasks, we are able to trade what we have for what they have, or using tokens, trade what we have for tokens that can be used to trade for anything else that accepts tokens.

While there is the obvious economic implications of that, there are also the social ramifications of it as our skills affect our social standing to a very high degree as well as our desirability in the eyes of others. Yes, w are very visual creatures, but there is no point in denying that we are also attracted to what someone can do to not only earn a living, but also provide value to the community.

You don't have to be rich to be my girl
You don't have to be cool to rule my world
Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
I just want your extra time and your
...Kiss
Prince

Prince was one of the most talented musical artists who has ever lived and was never short a dollar - but even he wanted a girls extra time - so what was she doing other times?

Essentially, there aren't many people in the world that are impressed by a persons ability to be able to do nothing and this is because we value being able to do something in ourselves. We even fantasize about being able to do far more than we can do, which is a big reason I believe the superhero is so enduring will probably become more so - we admire people who can do what we can't, we desire to be able to do what others can't. Scarcity value come into play, once again.

So, what then do we do when we don't have to do anything? It seems like an easy question to answer for some, but we generally imagine not having to do anything in today's world, not tomorrow's. We might say we would do what we love and learn to paint or work in a charity, but that is because those things are desirable under current conditions, but might not be even needed under a world governed by an AI structure.

The thing we have to consider based on the past is that what we have valued the most in ourselves tends to also be what we consider adds value to our external world and community in some way. Yes, we value it because it can earn us a dollar, but we valued it when we were living in tribes that shared resources too. We value what is useful to others, because when we can offer what they value, they will value us. It is an attraction model of supply and demand and while I am simplifying it here, I believe that this is a large part of our social dimension and how we organize ourselves in society - for better and worse.

But, take away the need to work from society and even if everything is provided for us and we live in a veritable utopia of peace and tranquility, what do we value in ourselves and perhaps more importantly as a director of behavior, what do we value in others? Will the organically learned skill always be more desirable, or will the digital overtake our senses and become the most wanted?

If you consider that there have been complaints for decades about things like unhealthy body image portrayed through media where it creates an unachievable expectation on men and women - how are we going to stack up against the future iterations of Projeckt Melody that will offer the human senses very real experiences that go beyond what any human can deliver?

This means, that our entire human model developed over 2 million years about what is important for us to do as individuals to feel some sense of worth is changing and we are going to get to a point where much of what we have valued in the past is no longer desirable at all. The question then becomes, what is desirable in a world where no human can compete? What indications will we use to organize ourselves and where will we take our cues to build preference? Will this lead to a deeper human connection, or will we become ever more shallow and put even more weighting on the things we can't control - because it is those things that will potentially lay outside of the realms of the AI. But, even our looks can be edited at the genetic level.

This could end in an obvious dystopia or, it could become the first time in our existence that we truly discover what is important to us as humans - by discovering what we truly value in each other.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]

Sort:  

The more that a robot or automaton can do things that I dislike (or don't have to waste precious moments of my life doing) - the more time I get to focus on the things that truly interest me.

That's a better thing.

My robot vac is at the repair shop at the moment and I miss it intruding on my daily meetings with work colleagues at 11AM

the more time I get to focus on the things that truly interest me.

But, at what point do your interests change as the robot keeps encroaching on your interest areas? Will you become disinterested when it can be done so much better so effortlessly? Remember that while you don't mind it doing the boring tasks you don't like, the parts of life you absolutely love are boring to other people - who will demand they get automated. It is going to get weird up in here.

!ENGAGE 10

There has already been too much ENGAGE today.

I found this intriguing;

This means, that our entire human model developed over 2 million years about what is important for us to do as individuals to feel some sense of worth is changing and we are going to get to a point where much of what we have valued in the past is no longer desirable at all.

Because I am there now and I am in a bit of a conundrum as to what to do about it.
I know where I want to go and what I want to do, but as a father and husband...I don’t feel free to just say, I am moving in a different direction, can you give up all we have and you come with me?

This is definitely a part of the issue -wanting to do different in the new world, but still having responsibilities in the old.

I don’t feel free to just say, I am moving in a different direction, can you give up all we have and you come with me?

And then ther eis this, not everyone is cut out for being an early adopter of a new technology - but how many are ready to rewire two million years of evolution?

I am about to deliver a training - back later :)

This is exactly summarizing the dilemma.

...wanting to do different in the new world, but still having responsibilities in the old.

!ENGAGE 10

There has already been too much ENGAGE today.

This is an interesting piece to read actually. I understand the logic and proposition and the questions included but I am so deep in thoughts that I am looping in more questions rather than seeking answers. Or, I am not the one to answer anyway.

I believe that the rudimentary AI integration is already happening with mobile phones and innovative technology we use now. It means the integration of AI will be so gradual alongside human generations,I think we will never notice the sudden emergence of AI dominance or support system.

I want to believe that the very human instinct to control and lead will still be there even in the AI integrated future. However, I am more concerned about the use of power by the know-hows of that world and how that power will be used against the overall human population. A Democratic system is where consensus and voting rule. Like in our blockchain system and in the real world, voting and witnessing can be manipulated to misuse power.

Damn, I don't know what I am saying. I would rather need an AI assistant to better channel my thoughts before posting a comment. Sigh. We need AI.😇

I believe that the rudimentary AI integration is already happening with mobile phones and innovative technology we use now.

We are already cyborgs reliant on machines to process our thoughts -it is just that the phone hasn't been implanted yet.

means the integration of AI will be so gradual alongside human generations,I think we will never notice the sudden emergence of AI dominance or support system.

Yes. it is already happening in many areas, we just think that the suggestions we end up taking are our own.

At some point, the AI gets loose from the power (if general) and becomes the power itself - for better or worse.

!ENGAGE 10

There has already been too much ENGAGE today.

I agree. No more engagement after this point. I am already tired 😅 😇

Hello @tarazp,

The subject of the impact of artificial intelligence on society is more than interesting. Based on this, the writers and filmmaker have projected their dystopias from the world of tomorrow, closer and closer, what you point out about the sex dolls are already, an incipient reality that points us to Blade runner in our days.

Modern humans seem to succumb to obsolescence, after 200,000 years of fabulous innovations, before their own creations. I can't imagine the repercussions, maybe the Cylon (Battlestar Galactica) will take over. However, man has shown great adaptability throughout history, and surely, as an intelligent species, this stage of the course of history under construction will be no exception.

Superficiality and banality have always accompanied us, so the central problem does not really lie there. I think it is focused on each time the power of influence achieved to the detriment of the environment and ourselves. A paradox in itself, an intelligent being who acts irrationally to his own detriment.

Superficiality and banality have always accompanied us, so the central problem does not really lie there.

Perhaps though in te past, we didn't have access to succumb fully into it - we are now very close that we can dive deep into a virtual reality and become whatever we want, from the comfort of our own couch. When you look in the mirror and see the perfect version of yourself, walk around the streets and only see beauty, and have a life of plenty - will you give that up to live the life you currently own - your reality? - Well, perhaps reality is not real at all ;)

In general, what we want does not always suit us. A very seductive vision ... simple fleeting appearance. An enigmatic sage said more than once, everything is vanity.

In general, what we want does not always suit us.

I think this is especially true now, as rather than "know thy self" and making decisions tailored to who we discover, we make decisions on what the group thinks is good, on trends. We used to do this more for clothes, now fashion is a political vote or social movement.

everything is vanity.

Indeed - but there is the "selfish" that benefits oneself, and the "selfish" that benefits oneself and others. The ego prefers the former.

I will tell you an anecdote from the conversation I once had with my father when I was a teenager. He told me, Javier in the world, first you, second you and always you ... When he died in 2011 I was 44 years old, he was veiled in his house, he seemed to be asleep behind the glass of the coffin, the funeral was crowded with visibly affected people.

Over time I had a conversation with my mother, she commented, your father on more than one occasion preferred to stop eating, giving up his food to help others, he enjoyed helping others. A strange form of egoism that of my father. Maybe I did not understand him well as a young man, with his example he taught me that you should be the first, the second and the last to help your neighbor (World)

That's the kind of selfish I aspire to be from now on.

My father was much the same - died recently with nothing - but he had done plenty for the world around him. He was egotistical in the fact that he enjoyed helping others - so he selfishly did what he loved.

Interesting. Very similar people in this particular type of egoism raised under other circumstances and from distant but contemporary places. Perhaps features of a generation that passing the baton to us in the endurance race of life.

I think experience affects heavily, and older generations were exposed to some quite difficult circumstances. Some became bitter, others flourished after. Most of the resent generations (in the west at least) think hardship is getting teased on social media -it is relative to experience.

!ENGAGE 10

There has already been too much ENGAGE today.

I'd really like to think that we will truly discover what is important to us. Obviously the alternative to that probably leads to extinction or hybridization. Uggghhh.

In the mid term I would expect that mechanics will be among the last skill to leave. I have a good friend that works maintenance at Giga Factory Nevada-one of the most AI and automated places on earth right now.

I also expect to see the rise of personal assistants. Status will be about how many people you have working for you.

I also think there will be smuggler class of folks that will provide things that just can't be gotten otherwise.

In the mid term I would expect that mechanics will be among the last skill to leave.

Yep. This will survive until a robot can be created that can fit into all of those places with dexterity - that'll take some time. I think it won't be long until massage therapists will be replaced even. Consider a robot that can scan your body, understand the position of every muscle, every joint and apply treatment in such a specific and sensitive way that it is perfectly tailored for you. Hands aren't that hard to replicate.... :D

The personal assistant thing is interesting as I do see that there will be an elite that will pay for "manual service" -like hipsters.

I also think there will be smuggler class of folks that will provide things that just can't be gotten otherwise.

On the Millennium Falcon.

!ENGAGE 10

There has already been too much ENGAGE today.

I think that we are overlooking one very important part of the AI equation. One I have not heard to much about. With out curiosity will AI ever evolve? We can make the perfect Milk Crate making robot, we have tool to build the perfect milk crate from 3D printers, Soon all the milk crates will look the same, AI has determined the most optimum design parameters for the milk crate right down to the color.

Many times people have heard the phrase if it works why change it?, or something similar. It is our curiosity that drives change, our ability to ask What if. Automation may be better and faster and more precise than humans, but will it ever ask What if?

I'm one of those don't fear AI replacement, AI is created by people, people are flawed in their thought processes, so I really don't see there ever being a perfect machine, it may look and act in a perfect manner, but will it ever grow through curiosity? That automated combine harvester will never ask itself what is on the other side of that hill.

I have thought about this and I think that there will be a "ain't broke, don't fix it" position on many things - however, I think that for a while at least, there will be random events that will keep it on its toes -eventually though, homogeneity will prevail. We are seeing it now in the realms of entertainment, everyone is chasing the same shows, bands, fashion - based on suggestions delivered by social media AIs like Facebook and Netflix. Eventually, we will all be feeding from the same pool of information and be socially inclined to not diverge.

The universe does tend to throw spanners in the works - for example, let's imagine the perfectAI world, what happens when an asteroid approaches?

One has to wonder if an AI system would let the Humans know an asteroid large enough to cause an extinction level event is going to hit the earth. If it chose to make the announcement would it do so as soon as it calculated the trajectory even if it was not scheduled to arrive until 2038, or wait until a couple days before impact.

I think either way, years ahead of impact, or a few days before impact, they both have consequences. And if the AI was wrong, and the Meteor missed, would anyone ever trust it again?

I hope I am not around when everything is the same, I really do not like stagnation, and that seems to be the direction many society movers are wanting to lead the masses.

I would suspect that an intelligent AI wouldn't tell unless it needed people to do something to help, because humans and our fears would create additional noise and uncertainty in the system that would disrupt calculations and plans.

I really do not like stagnation, and that seems to be the direction many society movers are wanting to lead the masses.

A homogeneous population is easy to control and sell stuff to. When everyone like the color blue, there is no reason to make something red.

!ENGAGE 10

There has already been too much ENGAGE today.

I went to the movie "2001:space odyssey." There the computer ends up taking the reins, the control, without the need of the human being, but we realize that we must always have the human brain behind the machine. I do not feel prejudiced by technological advances, on the contrary, I applaud them and feel that many of them have come to solve man's life. However, I feel that on its own, AI cannot exist. To replace it, to renew it, to perfect it, requires that wonderful thing that is the human brain. Only man is capable of asking himself why, of answering himself and saying: Ah! before the answer. A very, very interesting topic, @tarakzp!

However, I feel that on its own, AI cannot exist. To replace it, to renew it, to perfect it, requires that wonderful thing that is the human brain

This is true now, but is only true up to a point - at some moment, the switch will flip and it will evolve itself in ways we would never have thought of at speeds we never could.

!ENGAGE 10

There has already been too much ENGAGE today.

After your article, I decided to study for programming :) Once again, your words have become a decisive drop on the scales of decision making.

I like that you use my articles as points of study - still, don't blame me! :D

I'm not like that. For several years I seek to look for the cause of all "failures" only in myself. You are just a tool for me. I hope this doesn't sound offensive :)

You are just a tool for me. I hope this doesn't sound offensive :)

Not at all, I take it as a compliment =)

The second is that even though many think that a general intelligence machine that can compete at all levels might be impossible, a narrow AI that processes a narrow field isn't. What this means is that like the lions that join to create Voltron, these narrow intelligences can be combined to build a collaborative brain that would very much seem like a general level intelligence. Due to the processing power, speed and volume of data it can consume, evaluate, hypothesize upon and test through millions of simulations at a very low relative cost, it will be enough to push us all out of the markets eventually.

Hey, @tarazkp, do you remember japanese animation Voltron? 5 lions join to create Voltron.
By the way, I prefer the Andersen fairy tale of the Australian animation to Voltron.

do you remember japanese animation Voltron?

Yes, it is why I referenced it in the article :)

Thanks for your contribution to the STEMsocial community. Feel free to join us on discord to get to know the rest of us!

Please consider supporting our funding proposal, approving our witness (@stem.witness) or delegating to the @stemsocial account (for some ROI).

Please consider using the STEMsocial app app and including @stemsocial as a beneficiary to get a stronger support. 
 

Cheers :)

I remember when I was on G+ there was a conversation along these lines and someone was saying even art and writing could easily be replaced by technology eventually. I replied that I couldn't care less if it did because it wouldn't stop me XD

I think for many at least at first, it wouldn't stop them - but then over time things might change. For example, if the cultural taste of art changes, I think a lot of people would stop producing as there would be no audience - only a few do it for themselves completely.

Glad to see you posting something relevant to the stemsocial community. This is a well-formatted, nicely written, and well-argued piece of writing.

I know there have been several arguments about AI replacing humans in functional roles. However, my counter-argument has always been that humans are still the ones to build AIs. It thus means that functional/job roles will keep evolving with time and humans will keep being relevant. We have always been a step ahead of machines.

Thanks.

We have always been a step ahead of machines.

But this only gets us to a point until we are not. There is the obvious example of playing chess where for a long time, a human had a chance, but once it got to that point - no human will ever beat the machine again. I suspect it will start off with narrow fields such as this that will increase in complexity and lateral movement, then they will combine to solve more complex narrow issues - and then increase from there. At some point, we will not be able to work on the machines we have created as they will start working on themselves in ways we do not understand. For a while, there will be humans who will outperform the machines, but the average human won't and I think that is the biggest issue when it comes to employment.

Well, as long as the evolution of machines remains beneficial to humans, that should not be a problem. Also, remember that the power to disable machines still remains with humans, until machines become totally independent of humans, we will always be a step ahead. I don't think humans will watch on and allow machines to evolve to the extent of being independent.

Also, remember that the power to disable machines still remains with humans, until machines become totally independent of humans

I disagree here, as if you imagine that an AI on the internet now influences decision making, a general intelligence AI would be able to at a highly granular level across the globe. It wouldn't even need to attack, just manipulate. When it comes to humans will, they will do what they have always done, use their tools to maximize - but this tool could come to think for itself.

You seems sure for something that is supposed to be a hypothesis.

I am confident, not sure. When it comes to the future technology - it is uncertain what will arrive - when it comes to human behavior, we have a lot of evidence we can use to predict.

Well, I don't think or hope AI can replace the classic human fart. There's a lot to consider, comedic timing, sound, pitch, and more. I think AI is many years away from taking away the desire to let one rip.

It depends on what a culture finds amusing - I have never been a fan of fart humor myself for example. Who knows, perhaps the humor of an AI will outperform the humor of humans, since most humans these days rely on sharing other people's funny - which is why memes and gifs are so popular.

Even the manual labor levels like massage could be AI simulated and probably even deemed acceptable and appropriate, considering that people are already buying sex robots and watching animated AI porn - that points to a wiki for Projekt Melody, so it is deemed SFW and the only viral STD you might catch is one that steals your keys. You like I, might find it strange that someone would enjoy this kind of thing, but if you consider that millennials are raised to have relationships through screens, it is quite an obvious progression - I will leave this for another post though.

@tarazkp,As in the movie matrix, are humans raised by artificial intelligence like pigs?

Seems to be heading that way - once people are getting horny for robots, I am guessing they will accept a robot doing all kinds of things.

I love these mental exercises about the what-ifs of a coming AI takeover of the productive activities of society. After having read Kurzweil's works, I'm of the same opinion as him, that we will augment ourselves before a true synthetic AI arrives. By the time we get one, telling the difference between a person who was formerly 100% biological and a person with digital origins will be difficult. That said, part of my opinion is biased by my desire for humankind to continue existing. I think that if super AI beings come into existence, and they're not at least partially us, we won't last too much longer. It's a small chance that they'll be benign. I mean, we aren't towards other species beneath us on the intelligence spectrum. Why would a hyper intelligent AI treat us any different? That is, unless we become the very thing that could threaten to eradicate us.