The Siren Song of the Robot

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
,
21
I think most people would agree that the countries with the highest per-capita GDP are well-off, the countries in the middle are less well-off, and the countries with the lowest per-capita GDP are very, very poor.
Mark, I admire your optimism (I'm not being condescending... so difficult to express tone of voice through blogs). My question is a quantity vs. quality? I'm sure your numbers add up within the context of your argument, but looking at the list of countries by GDP, how many countries, in your opinion, listed below the U.S. enjoy a higher quality of life on average? Even if it's a gut feeling? I can see many based on my relationsips with people from those countries.

I'm sure in the future we can have "intellegent" robots, but can we have wise and empathic robots if their experience is not rooted in the human experience?

Thank You

22

Perhaps Addam Smith's "unseen hand" works only when the growth curve is positive.

23

Chris used to say that we had the tools and technologies to prevent the period of severe austerity that's comming, but we lacked the collective will power to get them into place in time. He's more recently updated his stance that it's now too late, and we are in for austerity no matter what (it's gone from "problem" to "predicament"). But he has never said that period of austerity would last forever, or that those technologies that won't come online in time won't ever come online.
I would be very curious to know Chris' thoughts/speculations about a longer timeline of, say, 50 years.

Is it likely that, during that period, we might get a safe, abundant energy source up and running on a large scale? Thorium? Fusion? Advances in solar/renewable/battery technology? 

Remember that in a previous ~50-year period in history we created a national power grid, learned how to fly, went to the moon, created antibiotics, added decades to the average human life span, split the atom… does it seem so far-fetched that in the next 50 we'll work the last few kinks out of an abundant, clean energy source? The Chinese expect to have a thorium plant up and running by 2020, and many other countries have started their own thorium programs to keep pace.

There are a lot of problems that can be solved by abundant, clean energy, and a lot of predicaments that can be softened. Take resource depletion as one example: In a cubic mile of ocean water there is over $10,000 worth of gold, and 600,000,000 lbs of bromine, a substance used in the production of anti-knock gasoline. We already have plants that gather bromine from ocean water economically. The biggest difficulty in this process? The cost of pumping; i.e. the cost of energy. Imagine what we could do with abundant, clean, virtually free energy with technology like this? And it's speculated that, even without a source of free energy, plants like this will start collecting a host of other critical minerals from the sea within a decade. So, a lot of these resources that are considered "lost" may not actually be lost at all in a world with abundant clean energy, which might just be our world sometime in the next 50 years.

And in fairness to Kurzweil, he never said that recessions don't happen, or relatively brief periods of slower technological development. He just pointed out that, on a large graph of exponential technological progress throughout centuries of human history, those periods of time are hardly visible in the overal trend. 

24

Gregor makes a great case for a powerful deflationary effect in the future.  I wonder if awareness of the robotic trend and its impact on wages and jobs has changed Chris' overall 80/20 belief that inflation will be the stronger force in the years ahead?  Perhaps we get the inflation before the deflationary forces of robotics, nanotechnology and genetics (per Wendy) are large enough to have an impact, and deflation comes about after the great reset?  I agree 100% that anyone predicting any certain level for gold or housing or whatever even a few years into the future is merely guessing, given all of the moving parts that are at play.  This speaks volumes to the concept of diversification as it relates to investments, in addition obviously to preparing for supply disruptions.
Bob, what you say makes me need a stiff drink but I prefer red pill honesty to bs optimism!  Thanks to all for the great insight, also Arthur, Mark, jan, et al.

25

Technology, robotics included, is intrinsically neither bad nor good. It is the uses that humans put these tools to that, from my perspective, render them “bad” or “good.” There was a quote in the movie Jurassic Park that was spot on IMHO, I don’t remember it word for word, but it went something like – “we were so preoccupied with whether or not we could, that we didn't stop to think if we should.” The old “look before you leap” parable…
Perhaps a question that we should all be asking ourselves is – what do we value? Some serious self-reflection and soul-searching, at the individual, community, national, and global levels, might provide some clarity. What are your core values? What is important/valuable enough to you that you’d pay hard-earned money for it, vote for it, stick your neck out for it, fight for it, die for it?

Until a person has really had that conversation with themselves, it’s hard for them to define what they stand for. Actions tend to be re-active rather than pro-active. Once a person has a solid understanding of their core values, then choices become clearer. And the reasons behind the choices are understood.

I ask myself – what role does a particular technology play in my life? What role do I want that technology to play in my life? Do I value inexpensive (cheap?) goods and services over the livelihoods of people? Does this technology enhance my life –in accordance with the things that I value most? In the long-run, does this technology make my life better or worse? Once I weigh the perceived benefits of technology through the lenses of my personal values, I can decide for myself whether it is “good” or “bad” for me and act accordingly.

The kicker for me on the robot topic though is this – even if the majority of people in the US opted to not support robotics, I think that the military and the law enforcement agencies will never give them up. So, we end up with super-efficient spying/killing machines, which can be automated to operate without human interaction, and that have no conscience, no values, no ability to judge “should I do this?”.  Personally, I find that horrifying.

26

…you said:
"Bob, what you say makes me need a stiff drink but I prefer red pill honesty to bs optimism!"
…and my immediate reaction was the glass is still half full, as apposed to half empty. Same glass of water. Take whatever pill you want but I know lots and lots of stuff, and this world isn't going to kick me in the teeth.
The very next thing I thought was, "I am being optimistic and that offends you". Then I thought, geez I heard of people like you before but I never heard them speak. A first then, thank you.
It is true, I am an optimist but logical when serious. For instance: So many here think a Deflationary cycle is 50% unemployment and Depression. I think Hyperinflation and ruinous reserve currency looks worse. I choose Deflation then because it favors those who played by the rules and punished those who didn't, so I am happy for this.
Now, it is a great possibility that Robots could replace 50 to 75% of labor in 20-30 years. It most certainly is the future so what capital will be spent into labor intensive projects when in a few years Robots will make that industry obsolete, and the Financiers/Bankers won't get paid because the guy with the Robots win. 
Hyperinflation punishes everyone, and I mean everyone. Labor is worth nothing as from the time you get paid your money is losing value. In Deflation everything has value it just depends on who wants your stuff, needs what you have. 
I absolutely understand that life with less is more. It's a piece of cake. Hyperinflation, high inflation, not a clue ( I'm talking higher inflation than the Carter Admin) but I got Gold and Silver just in case, and that was an easy call. I know Deflation and I can and have prepared for that too so I'm optimistic about the future.
China don't want us going to Hyperinflation either, all our creditors don't because we owe them money we have no intentions of paying. I say we go serious Deflation because Robots and  DEBT are taking us there anyways if we just stop trying to prohibit it. The world would have to understand because it's business, a natural cycle in economics and not this create paper fiat out of thin air so it looks better stuff. All of Europe are their now and most others are there too if they showed the numbers properly. Including China. I guess what I am saying is hey, I'm sorry, I know I owe you lots of money. I can pay you half now or nothing in bankruptcy. Just business.
Lastly, everything I stated and supported with reference material about Robotics is how I actually see things and I wanted a drink too but I don't drink, much, Christmas, maybe. So if all of that was viewed by you as sickening optimism then you must see things as really in the toilet. I don't.
I woke up this morning with a calm, not since the Gregor article hit the news stand was I calm, I was restive frankly. and just figured that you can produce every gadget in the world you want but if no one can pay for them then the robot will sit idly by too. I believe we get balance so long as the Fed never gets the power to use Robots to replace Oil as the backing for the dollar. Make sence? Optimistic to think we'll have balance I felt because the logic is so pure. IF you can't buy what the Robot makes then what's the point. I instantly felt better and had a terrific day, thank you very much.
" To Optimistic Bullshit ", imagine that. Hmph.
Regards
BOB

27

…I like your thread, it has a morality to it that I can live with, like to live with. I'll play the grey area if need be but I don't want to.I think it will be easier to determine the outcome though. If Supply and Demand are the criteria for bartering/money/Gold then their will be balance. It will happen naturally, and Greed will play a part as it always does. Greed will hurt those who come late to the party though as it should. The better mouse trap that is cheapest wins. It will always break down to its simplest form in everything this world offers if it is allowed to correct. Just natural I think.
If the Fed stepped out today where would the economy go? Yep, it would settle down quite aways are my thoughts as over production is absorbed, as too much cash is finally destroyed, and all forms of truly malinvestments are used up, and set aside for recycling for the next great electrical economy to run them Robots.
What is going on today is that some Folks are in pretty deep with their cash, and they have put it into long range projects that haven't paid them back their initial investments. To bad I say but they spred some cash around in high places and these politicians have to make good. The dance will end but it won't be so bad. Banks, they overextended and need help but in the end it will be their Debt that buries them and it should. No different, be a Bank or individual. It's just the law of economics.
A train could be imagined a Robot right? I like trains. A better day tomorrow then, good.
BOB

28

Hi Jan,


However misguided that enthusiasm might seem to be…I won't engage you on this Mark,

Well, that's unfortunate. If you think my "enthusiasm" is "misguided," perhaps you could convince me where I'm misguided. I've been wrong before. Lots of times. Mark
29

 
Not Half Full, Not Half Empty,
The Glass is too Big!

30

Hi,


…how many countries, in your opinion, listed below the U.S. enjoy a higher quality of life on average? Even if it's a gut feeling?

Well, I don't like the cold or long nights. So most of the countries of central/northern Europe (Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland) that I might otherwise choose are out. I've always wanted to visit Australia and New Zealand. About the lowest country I'd even consider possible to be better than the U.S. is Costa Rica. (Just because I've heard/read that the cost of living is so low.)  But I've unfortunately never been, so I couldn't really say. The thing is, there are a wholllllle lot of countries below Costa Rica. So there's a pretty strong correlation between per capita GDP and desirabilty. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/01/its-time-to-bury-easterlin-paradox.html
I'm sure in the future we can have "intellegent" robots, but can we have wise and empathic robots if their experience is not rooted in the human experience?
One thing that I think the Terminator movies could very well have correct is that robots could easily have thought processes that are completely foreign to us. There's a part in Terminator 3 wherein John Connor and his future wife are laughing, and Ahnold Terminator says:
Your levity is good, it relieves tension and the fear of death.
Robots could end up being what to us is unspeakably evil. Another good line, this from Terminator 1:
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
If the robots we build (and later start building themselves) want to do us harm, we'll be in deep, deep doo-doo.   Best wishes, Mark
31

…as the Blue screen now fades to black, I am smiling in my own soliloquy. Nighty, night.Note:  I did good didn't I Moderator Jason. See, I'm coachable. It takes a few times but I finally get it.
BOB

32
The kicker for me on the robot topic though is this – even if the majority of people in the US opted to not support robotics,..
An even more important consideration is that, if the U.S. were simply to vanish, there are plenty of other countries that will carry computer intelligence forward. The Japanese. Chinese. Western Europe. India. The U.S. share of world GDP has been declining for decades, and likely will continue to decline. (Which is not a bad thing. It means that China, India, and other poor countries are growing very rapidly.)
33

[quote=RJE]…as the Blue screen now fades to black, I am smiling in my own soliloquy. Nighty, night.
Note:  I did good didn't I Moderator Jason. See, I'm coachable. It takes a few times but I finally get it.
BOB
[/quote]
 
Sleep well,  I meant you no harm, if you took it that way for some reason.
John

34

Mark,Interesting article, but IMHO it's flawed from the beginning. The article admits right from the outset that happiness is squishy (what does that imply?), but then goes on to give "empirical data," as if it's not squishy, and that money = happiness. I would be interested to see what questions exactly they asked to come to this conclusion, since they would have had to do polling to acquire this "data." Were the questions binary in nature? What assumptions were made within the questions themselves? What context was given in framing the questions? How does the data address income inequality within a country with higher GDP? Too often statisticians make faulty assumptions, compile data on those assumptions and then package the data and present them as facts. We've all seen and experienced this, which is why interpreting the facts is just as important, if not more important than the facts themselves. So you're comment below the article is well taken, but it could also be asked in reverse:

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell.
Furthermore,
Your levity is good, it relieves tension and the fear of death.
I like this quote you used above...and it can be directly applied to Ray Kurzweil. I remember hearing him speak on death. (was it the Singularity documentary?) I could hear the desperation in his voice and the implied cry..."I don't want to die!! We should be able to live forever!!" Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Kurzweil for a lot of things, but he is only human. Thank You
35

[quote=MarkBahner]Hi Arthur,

One of the advantages of writing things to electronic records is that in future the technology will not be able to read it. So our most embarassing gaffs will be unrecorded. Unlike pen and paper where thoughts from Roman times are still available.
You're not considering new DNA storage: http://midsizeinsider.com/en-us/article/dna-data-storage-could-data-really-live It has a storage capacity of 2.2 petabytes (that's 2200 terabytes)...per gram. That flash drive probably weighs about 10 grams, of which maybe 2 grams(?) is the actual media (the rest is the case). So that means an equivalent DNA drive would store about 4000-5000 times as much information. And if DNA was reasonably well stored (e.g. put in a stainless steel container, and buried underground), it could easily last 10,000 years. So be careful what you write here. [/quote] Of course, This assumes that we will still have the ability to read the data from the DNA. Sure, I have to face my mistakes every day when I look at my DNA in the mirror... But, with luck, time will erase those thoughts from my memory. ... Now where did I put that Beta tape player...
36

Well,
I just can't buy it. Basically, "ya can't have it both ways!"
Where do these robots come from? Who "makes" them? How much resources does it require for their manufacture?
You just can't say on one hand that we are in an ever widening "energy gap" of EROEI and then think that somehow, a massive infrastructure of "robots" will be built and dominate.
By the opinions here on this site, there isn't enough "rare earths" to build out a fleet of electric cars much less the infrastructure to support them. So where are the "rare earths" going to come from to build these " intelligent robots?"
Where is all of the liquid fuel energy going to come from to build the amount of automation required to really make these projections of 6% growth and sloughing of human capital?
Yes, I agree that with liquid energy becoming increasingly expensive, there will be a tipping point where it is "cheaper" to manufacture a (whatever) closer to the point of sale rather than incur the costs in increased shipping. I am surprised that it isn't already happening… but perhaps it is beginning.
Large - even gigantic manufacturing plants that span many acres under one roof consuming enormous amounts of energy (electric or otherwise) simply will not be sustainable.Shipping products long distances will become too expensive. Instead, I believe that smaller, localized manufacturing could emerge in a hub and spoke fashion, where the local "robots" take their orders from a distant command and control center, or even better, decentralized command and control. The products can be delivered closer to where they will be sold to begin with. Of course, this "build out" still requires a substantial amount of liquid energy to get done. Think about this concept next time you are eating in your favorite chain restaurant. They have a centralized command and control algorithm that basically runs the restaurant. The managers, wait staff and even the folks in the kitchen take their orders from afar. Ask next time the parking lot lights don't come on at dusk, or they come on "early" why that happens. I think you will be surprised to learn. Oh, ask about the A/C or heating as well. Don't forget to ask for something "different" than what is on the programmed menu. Or, ask for a substitution.
Then of course, there is the environmental load. I don't care if you are making electricity by using Thorium reactors. Just look back at one of Chris' podcasts where he chats with Tom Murphy about there not being enough BTU's available. I also believe that if you understand the concept that no matter how much energy we release, we still live in a fishbowl. We would cook ourselves first before we reach the point where there are so many robots doing so many things that cause the collapse of human whatever…
Lastly, what is that little thing that Chris talks about complex systems? They tend to break and unravel yes? Sometimes with spectacular results.
Folks, 'ya just can't have it both ways. Something will have to give first.

37

…I don't have the tape, I thought you did. What were we talking about again?!BOB

38

I am an Electrical Engineer, pretty much trudging around in the communications/networking industry for last 15 or so years (currently working at one of the big providers…think AT&T - not that one).  Big buzz word (there always seems to be a buzzword) is Software Defined Networking (SDN).   The term hit me last year, and now seems like everybody and their dog have gotten into the game.     Its rather hard to get your head around the term, even a veteran as myself in this business.  I mean for decades we have always looked at OSS systems that can automate this and that, generally they fail, as they aren't scalable and expensive to maintain.  Then end up costing alot more than saved in the end.  But this SDN thing is catching on and picking up steam, so much that our board members of our company have have my engineering team putting alot of resources on it.  The board members, obviously, have been showered with promises of automation and cost savings.  At first you think, will this is just some fancy OSS automation software to get info from a-z quick and easy.  But it goes much deeper than that.  There are plenty of IEEE standards flowing around it, as well TR papers written.  In other words, equipment hardware makers are adhere to a standard.  
Anyway, to relate this to your story here, this really does look more than a buzzword, and the more we dig into it and talk to the software (and hardware vendors), this stuff looks real.  My team looked at me the other day and simply said, you know, if this works and does what it says, we are all out of work.

 

39

[quote=RJE]…I don't have the tape, I thought you did. What were we talking about again?!
BOB
[/quote]
Tape? The one with 43 minutes missing? Ah, er… I don't have it. 
I am still trying to find the Betamax. 
As for SDN's - yup I use them. My company uses them for network safety. Is the the SDN we are talking about? From what I hear, it's only slightly more complicated than a kid sitting in his bedroom with a laptop can hack. 
I also want to add, that those who run the corporations (like the pols and banksters) will try whatever it takes (like automation) to increase the bottom line. 
Even in my industry (medical devices) my  company is using technology to provide my customers answers to clinical questions about my products. Think call center. It isn't a far stretch to think that a well written program could evaluate the information provided by the medical device, compare that data against a set of standards and then send a canned response to the customer that requested the evaluation. 
Where all of this breaks down, is in the ever increasing complexity of a given system. It's ok as long as everything works as it is susposed to. What happens when another Sandy hits? Or an Irene?

40

We are surrounded by robots.
They have not taken the form we somehow expected them to take. Oh, sure, there's the Roomba–a vacuum cleaner that runs around your ankles like a cross between a remote control car and an annoying pet–and there are those lifelike looking experimental humanoid robots in Japan. Don't have either. Not sure I want either. But there are still robots in my life. Most of them either had something to do with manufacturing what I own, or are software robots.
Software bots bring me my email and filter (or send) my spam. They constantly sample the temperature in my house and adjust the heating or cooling within a certain range, and they inject precise amounts of fuel into the combustion chambers in my car (or perhaps your furnace). They search for my cell signal. They run my power station. They try very hard to figure out my buying habits based on my browsing history, and then suggest which ads might be useful. They account for much of the volume of stock trading. Automated software system bots surround me. And you.
Physical robots–machine arms and devices. computer driven–manufacture many of our goods. We call these types of robots productivity enhancers, and lament the jobs they take even as they make our lives easier (if we can afford our easier lives without that job.) They take assembly lines an exponential step further and do things faster, safer, and better that mere humans. It makes our goods cheaper, yet somehow cheapens many of the final products. We know this, or why the ad campaign that promoted the benefits of, "turkey, not technology" ?
We have met the future, and it is odd.