Corbyn ally tells British workers to launch a 'luxury Communist revolution' where jobs would be abolished thanks to robots

The left-wing politician leading Jeremy Corbyn’s drive to sack moderate MPs has called on Labour supporters to ‘rise up’ and start a ‘luxury Communism revolution’ in Britain. Labour MP Chris Williamson said it was time to reward the ‘bloody hard work of ordinary working people’ by helping them grab more of the nation’s wealth. He urged them to make Mr Corbyn prime minister to achieve what he called ‘luxury Communism’ where robots do all the work.

Mr Williamson was addressing activists in Croydon, South London, on the latest stage of his self-styled Democracy Roadshow nationwide tour. The Derby North MP savaged Theresa May’s Government: ‘Who are they exercising power for? Cos it ain’t us. We don’t want people to work until they drop. What’s wrong with that?’

He said Labour should take a lead from the 1988 pop song, Talkin’ Bout A Revolution, by British singer Tracy Chapman.

Reciting the words, Mr Williamson said: ‘Yes, we are talking about a revolution. Poor people are going to rise up and get their share, take what’s theirs.’

He continued: ‘The wealth of this country has been brought about by the bloody hard work of ordinary working people and we want it shared around.

‘The future belongs to us comrades. We’re going to change this country forever.’

Mr Williamson, who frequently defends Mr Corbyn on television and radio, endorsed the trendy utopian Left-wing philosophy ‘fully automated luxury communism,’ whereby jobs are abolished in a post-work robot society.

He also called for a return of the ‘municipal socialism’ of Derek Hatton, expelled in 1986 for his role in Militant Tendency in Liverpool.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6169995/Corbyn-ally-tells-British-workers-launch-luxury-Communist-revolution.html

And yet these clowns think they can run this country

It would be funny, if not for the fact, these loons could actually gain power

Then give it a couple of years and people will be queing for medicine and food like Venezuela

Deluded !

While his 'vision' is not likely to come about any time soon, a future where most manual jobs are done by machine is not hard to imagine and very likely to happen.

Machines ALREADY do a lot of the factory work that used to be done by people, and automated check outs are widespread now across Europe and increasingly in developing countries. That means a lot less jobs for the population at large.

Less jobs means more people inevitably will be unemployed. What do you do with those people? We can't just leave them without.

And I don't suggest stopping the technological revolution either. It works for businesses to have robots and computers do jobs they'd otherwise have to pay people to do. It makes business sense.

Avoiding the implications of this though is not a wise move. People will turn to the party that addresses the issue in the long term, and while this MP might be jumping the gun, it is worth noting that at least some in the Labour Party are aware of this.

BTW, The UK (and USA, where such ridiculous scaremongering is common from Republicans) is in NO danger of ending up like Venezuela. Venezuela had the opportunity to build a sustainable economic model when oil prices were high, and blew it. That was all they had. Now they suffer the consequences. The UK is not comparable to a developing Latin American state, which, btw, has also had to deal with tough economic sanctions since Chavez.

PS: 'The Soul of Man under Socialism' is a fascinating essay which touches on the issue of an automated work force. Written by Oscar Wilde at the end of the 19th Century. Great read and shows how long this possibility has been discussed.

You are living in a bubble and there is nothging more concerning than robots taking over most jobs, then having more people requiring the rest of society to look after them. That is not even feesible or practical. So that idea by this Stassi captain of the Corbyn ideology, who is a complete danger to society. Is delussional. So they have not looked ahead at all, to find alternatives that people can do and its clear he expects them to looked after by others in society. By claiming a revolution.

Well considering John Macdonald has already stated just this week, he is willing to borrow more than 500 billion to put their version of suicidal economics into practice. I give it two years, after they hike up taxes on the rich, which many are also foreign, who will simple go live in their countries of origin. Then the rest of society will have to pay the burden, that most the rich pay already. Of course this will be unsustainable. Buisnesses will move out to other countries and the sorial of self destruction will continue. When the economy collapses.


This happened in France under the socialist mass tax hike a little while back. Where they had 12,000 millionares leave France each year. So bad was this decision, that they later dropped the 75% level on the rich.

No thanks on the Socialist drivel by Oscar Wilde. I have seen how it works in practice enough to know its a disaster.

John McDonnell has admitted that he is “embarrassed about how mediocre” Labour’s £500 billion spending splurge plans are, claiming that they are only “the first step to give people confidence.” The clear implication is that he has unannounced secret, much more radical plans ready to be implemented once the public have been duped by the supposedly modest manifesto commitment for a half trillion unfunded spending binge.

“the most important thing then is to make sure that you invest in the state, you put forward a capex programme parts of £250 billion and have national investment bank, that we think can leverage in another £250 billion so £500 billion investment programme, a ten year programme, nothing untoward with that. I’m embarrassed about how mediocre it is in comparison to what we could do, but it’s a first step.”

Former Labour shadow Chancellor Chris Leslie has said “The worry that I have is this suggestion of £500 billion. I mean, that’s an awful lot of either borrowing or extra taxation. In order to raise it you’d have to double income tax. You’d have to double National Insurance. You’d have to double council tax. And you’d have to double VAT as well.” Doubling taxes is “nothing untoward”. McDonnell thinks half-a-trillion pounds is “modest” Guido would hate to think what his next step is…

https://order-order.com/2018/09/11/mcdonnell-im-embarrassed-mediocre-500-billion-spending-plan/

Didge wrote:You are living in a bubble and there is nothging more concerning than robots taking over most jobs, then having more people requiring the rest of society to look after them. That is not even feesible or practical. So that idea by this Stassi captain of the Corbyn ideology, who is a complete danger to society. Is delussional. So they have not looked ahead at all, to find alternatives that people can do and its clear he expects them to looked after by others in society. By claiming a revolution.

Well considering John Macdonald has already stated just this week, he is willing to borrow more than 500 billion to put their version of suicidal economics into practice. I give it two years, after they hike up taxes on the rich, which many are also foreign, who will simple go live in their countries of origin. Then the rest of society will have to pay the burden, that most the rich pay already. Of course this will be unsustainable. Buisnesses will move out to other countries and the sorial of self destruction will continue. When the economy collapses.


This happened in France under the socialist mass tax hike a little while back. Where they had 12,000 millionares leave France each year. So bad was this decision, that they later dropped the 75% level on the rich.

No thanks on the Socialist drivel by Oscar Wilde. I have seen how it works in practice enough to know its a disaster.

If a robot does the job of 10 unskilled people, it stands to reason that 10 people are unemployed as a result and the robot may only need to be maintained by one or two people with the skills required to do so.

So the question remains, WHAT do you with those people?

Of course, conservatives like yourself may well just bury your heads in the sand and pretend this isn't a problem (and certainly not YOUR problem!), but it WILL be. Because when people find themselves unemployed en masse, they WILL start to be problem. They WILL vote in extremists who WILL make silly promises.

The solution is not to dismiss this likely future OR those it will affect.

And I suggest Wilde's essay as it is an interesting read whether you agree or not. Quite astounding from a so-called many of history to just dismiss reading anything that MIGHT be of interest. I'm not recommending it as a propaganda tool, didge. It is interesting in its own right. But if you won't even humour reading something that even slightly contradicts your world view, well, that says a lot about your outlook on the world and pretty much puts to bed the remotest possibility of being open-minded. Fgs, I watch speeches by Ben Shapiro and debates with conservatives all the time to get a rounded view. Only watching and reading things YOU agree with will give you a biased view.

Where did anyone say they were dismissing the future problem?

In fact on a number of occasions I have debated this with Victor on this forum.

You see this is what you lefties do, so badly misdirect and place the debate yet again about me. So far away from the actual article and the delusions of this Corbynite

As seen his solution is to have  revolution for these people to take off others

I have read some of his books before and to be frank I did not enjoy them. So you want to put me through more punishement reading things I do not enjoy?

I do not even like the works of Shakespeare, its enough to send me to sleep

I always look and read into ideas on both left and right.

I have also read many things about socialism

So I am very open minded, I just have zero interest in reading any more of his books. No matter if people rave about him. I dont. So again a poor misconception by you, as I watch many things by people on the left to understand what they are talking about. How else do you think I came to be progressive on so many views over the many years of my life?

Didge wrote:Where did anyone say they were dismissing the future problem?

In fact on a number of occasions I have debated this with Victor on this forum.

You see this is what you lefties do, so badly misdirect and place the debate yet again about me. So far away from the actual article and the delusions of this Corbynite

As seen his solution is to have  revolution for these people to take off others

I have read some of his books before and to be frank I did not enjoy them. So you want to put me through more punishement reading things I do not enjoy?

I do not even like the works of Shakespeare, its enough to send me to sleep

I always look and read into ideas on both left and right.

I have also read many things about socialism

So I am very open minded, I just have zero interest in reading any more of his books. No matter if people rave about him. I dont.

It isn't a book. It's an essay. Never mind.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:Where did anyone say they were dismissing the future problem?

In fact on a number of occasions I have debated this with Victor on this forum.

You see this is what you lefties do, so badly misdirect and place the debate yet again about me. So far away from the actual article and the delusions of this Corbynite

As seen his solution is to have  revolution for these people to take off others

I have read some of his books before and to be frank I did not enjoy them. So you want to put me through more punishement reading things I do not enjoy?

I do not even like the works of Shakespeare, its enough to send me to sleep

I always look and read into ideas on both left and right.

I have also read many things about socialism

So I am very open minded, I just have zero interest in reading any more of his books. No matter if people rave about him. I dont.

It isn't a book. It's an essay. Never mind.

So what, as I say I find shakespeare boring and its enough to send me to sleep

Considering I have changed my views to many progressive views over the years, shows I have listened and read views from the left. Hence another misconception by you

there will be robots to repair and maintain the other robots
the Machines will even program themselves. 

the need of Human labor is Dwindling and will soon cease to be needed at all.

that is just fact, anyone that thinks otherwise is Delusional, they are the same as the people that said we will always need Horse and Oxen.

veya_victaous wrote:there will be robots to repair and maintain the other robots
the Machines will even program themselves. 

the need of Human labor is Dwindling and will soon cease to be needed at all.

that is just fact, anyone that thinks otherwise is Delusional, they are the same as the people that said we will always need Horse and Oxen.

Its not a fact at all. I know you believe in a technocrat society, but there are many things which will never be replaced by machines.

You then could get to the point, where machines could want the same rights as humans

Espically if they are programmed to have emotions

Then who is going to do the work?

Didge wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:there will be robots to repair and maintain the other robots
the Machines will even program themselves. 

the need of Human labor is Dwindling and will soon cease to be needed at all.

that is just fact, anyone that thinks otherwise is Delusional, they are the same as the people that said we will always need Horse and Oxen.

Its not a fact at all. I know you believe in a technocrat society, but there are many things which will never be replaced by machines.

You then could get to the point, where machines could want the same rights as humans

Espically if they are programmed to have emotions

Then who is going to do the work?

Not all things will be replaced by machines, but a huge amount will be.

And that will leave more people without jobs. Which for RW commentators will end up being interpreted as 'an epidemic of lazy jobless scroungers...' because they never bothered coming up with a solution to this inevitability.

As for robots becoming emotional, now we ARE getting in sci-fi. Ultimately, there'll always be an off switch

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its not a fact at all. I know you believe in a technocrat society, but there are many things which will never be replaced by machines.

You then could get to the point, where machines could want the same rights as humans

Espically if they are programmed to have emotions

Then who is going to do the work?

Not all things will be replaced by machines, but a huge amount will be.

And that will leave more people without jobs. Which for RW commentators will end up being interpreted as 'an epidemic of lazy jobless scroungers...' because they never bothered coming up with a solution to this inevitability.

As for robots becoming emotional, now we ARE getting in sci-fi. Ultimately, there'll always be an off switch

But my point still stands, as they will be effectivelly slaves to humans

It would only be a matter of time, before the question rise for their personal freedom

You see its the left that never think anything through

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its not a fact at all. I know you believe in a technocrat society, but there are many things which will never be replaced by machines.

You then could get to the point, where machines could want the same rights as humans

Espically if they are programmed to have emotions

Then who is going to do the work?

Not all things will be replaced by machines, but a huge amount will be.

And that will leave more people without jobs. Which for RW commentators will end up being interpreted as 'an epidemic of lazy jobless scroungers...' because they never bothered coming up with a solution to this inevitability.

As for robots becoming emotional, now we ARE getting in sci-fi. Ultimately, there'll always be an off switch

But my point still stands, as they will be effectivelly slaves to humans

It would only be a matter of time, before the question rise for their personal freedom

You see its the left that never think anything through

Nonsense. They would be machines didge. No different than TVs, cars and computers, just more sophisticated. No one is going to be talking about slavery or rights for machines with a limitless capacity to work.

We aren't talking Blade Runner-esque AI here. Just automated machines designed for a single or limited purpose.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


But my point still stands, as they will be effectivelly slaves to humans

It would only be a matter of time, before the question rise for their personal freedom

You see its the left that never think anything through

Nonsense. They would be machines didge. No different than TVs, cars and computers, just more sophisticated. No one is going to be talking about slavery or rights for machines with a limitless capacity to work.

We aren't talking Blade Runner-esque AI here. Just automated machines designed for a single or limited purpose.

Its not nonsense at all Eilzel and if machines reach the capbility of such thinking, then what is then not stopping them demanding rights?

Recently in India, animals have been given the same rights as humans

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/05/animals-accorded-rights-humans-indian-national-park/

You are just not thinking outside the box and there is no doubt you will have humans also looking to give rights to machines

Anyway, I am tired and going to bed

Night Eilzel

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


But my point still stands, as they will be effectivelly slaves to humans

It would only be a matter of time, before the question rise for their personal freedom

You see its the left that never think anything through

Nonsense. They would be machines didge. No different than TVs, cars and computers, just more sophisticated. No one is going to be talking about slavery or rights for machines with a limitless capacity to work.

We aren't talking Blade Runner-esque AI here. Just automated machines designed for a single or limited purpose.

Its not nonsense at all Eilzel and if machines reach the capbility of such thinking, then what is then not stopping them demanding rights?

Recently in India, animals have been given the same rights as humans

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/05/animals-accorded-rights-humans-indian-national-park/

You are just not thinking outside the box and there is no doubt you will have humans also looking to give rights to machines

Animals are not robots, didge. Animals have life and at least some degree of conciousness.

Only if robots gain conciousness would rights ever become an issue (Blade Runner is my best example of this). If they do not gain conciousness they do warrant rights. They are still just machines. Whether or not they gain conciousness is up to humans. But I doubt robots assembling cars in factories are ever going ti be THAT sophisticated, didge.

Night.

LOL
we are already doing/done away with the off switch 

Machines Will demand Rights 
they think and have emotions already 



This is why I repeatably say You are debating the 'what ifs of a world that is already gone' 
Both of You are ALREADY WRONG 

I'll find so of the other videos of AI tests.

the debate should be:
 Do we treat them a slaves? (which at first they will be, but everyone that understands how they function knows it only going to be for a short period of time before they are superior to us) 
Do we treat them as Equals? (the danger is they could then be 'competitor')
Do we Accept they are Superior?(the truth) 


this is Not Sci Fi 
this is the 2018 reality 

I would be very interested to know how the likes of conservative/free market pundits such as Dodge, nicko, Raggamuffin, Lord Foul, Fred, Deano and Tommy would deal with the possibility of 30 -->> 40% unemployment levels in another decade or two...

If the conservative political parties and their big business masters have their way, that's where Britain could well end up, what with the current trends in automation, mechanisation, increasing "casualisation" of the workforce, flat wages, lower taxes and "trickle down" policies -- and ever increasing housing unaffordability, food and energy prices..

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I would be very interested to know how the likes of conservative/free market pundits such as Dodge, nicko, Raggamuffin, Lord Foul, Fred, Deano and Tommy would deal with the possibility of 30 -->> 40% unemployment levels in another decade or two...

If the conservative political parties and their big business masters have their way, that's where Britain could well end up, what with the current trends in automation, mechanisation, increasing "casualisation" of the workforce, flat wages, lower taxes and "trickle down" policies -- and ever increasing housing unaffordability, food and energy prices..

What do you based that number on?

Out of thin air?

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
we are already doing/done away with the off switch 

Machines Will demand Rights 
they think and have emotions already 



This is why I repeatably say You are debating the 'what ifs of a world that is already gone' 
Both of You are ALREADY WRONG 

I'll find so of the other videos of AI tests.

the debate should be:
 Do we treat them a slaves? (which at first they will be, but everyone that understands how they function knows it only going to be for a short period of time before they are superior to us) 
Do we treat them as Equals? (the danger is they could then be 'competitor')
Do we Accept they are Superior?(the truth) 


this is Not Sci Fi 
this is the 2018 reality 

You are jumping the gun, veya.

Yes we have the ability to do away with on off switches. Yes we are rapidly developing AI.

But just because we CAN develop such things for purposes of labour does NOT mean we SHOULD (to paraphrase Goldblum in Jurassic Park).

When it comes to replacing work forces in factories, warehouses and super markets with machines, it would be absolutely pointless to do so with robots that have the capacity to think just like humans.

If we learn anything from speculative fiction is should be the dangers of developing a hyper advanced AI work force.

We don't need to. We've no real reason too. We CAN maintain and should maintain the ability to deactivate such machines in a second. To avoid any needless stupid risks.

The real concern, the human concern I mentioned and wolf now brings us back to, is what to do about the mass unemployment that will come as a result.

Isaac Asimov, "NO Robot shall harm a human being in Any way"------------or something like that !

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I would be very interested to know how the likes of conservative/free market pundits such as Dodge, nicko, Raggamuffin, Lord Foul, Fred, Deano and Tommy would deal with the possibility of 30 -->> 40% unemployment levels in another decade or two...

If the conservative political parties and their big business masters have their way, that's where Britain could well end up, what with the current trends in automation, mechanisation, increasing "casualisation" of the workforce, flat wages, lower taxes and "trickle down" policies -- and ever increasing housing unaffordability, food and energy prices..

What do you based that number on?

Out of thin air?

A lot of jobs are disappearing by the week --  check out chicks, general labourers, machinists, farm labourers, farmers, gardeners, postmen, military/police/emergency services are smaller measured as a proportion of the population (more technology/less staff in proportion..).

"Casualised" workers aren't, by definition, full-time workers --  3 casualised workers each averaging under 25 hours a week ==  less than 2 fulltimers ==  the equivalent of 1+ "hidden" unemployed person..

Under-employment due to "casualisation" and automation ==  less hours ==  less pay.

Anti-union/anti-worker/pro-boss propaganda + boss-friendly policy ==  less pay, less hours, less securiy.

Add all of thes up  ==>>  less money in the economy, less work for average employees, less security and stability.. And a slower and more shaky economy.


You still haven't said where and how you would deal with a possible doubling or tripling of total unemployed (i.e, unemployed + "under-employed" + "hidden" unemployed) if&when they eventuate,  Dodger.

You like to harp on about how in your fantasy "trickle down" Thatcherist universe everybody who wants to improve themselves and get a better job can do so --  while completely ignoring that (a)there are only a limited number of those jobs out there; and (b) the number of such jobs is shrinking as a proportion of total workforce..

Then there's the reality that many displaced workers simply cannot be "trained up" and re-employed into higher level jobs, no matter how much propaganda the big business groups keep pumping out.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:


What do you based that number on?

Out of thin air?

A lot of jobs are disappearing by the week --  check out chicks, general labourers, machinists, farm labourers, farmers, gardeners, postmen, military/police/emergency services are smaller measured as a proportion of the population (more technology/less staff in proportion..).

"Casualised" workers aren't, by definition, full-time workers --  3 casualised workers each averaging under 25 hours a week ==  less than 2 fulltimers ==  the equivalent of 1+ "hidden" unemployed person..

Under-employment due to "casualisation" and automation ==  less hours ==  less pay.

Anti-union/anti-worker/pro-boss propaganda + boss-friendly policy ==  less pay, less hours, less securiy.

Add all of thes up  ==>>  less money in the economy, less work for average employees, less security and stability..   And a slower and more shaky economy.


You still haven't said where and how you would deal with a possible doubling or tripling of total unemployed (i.e, unemployed + "under-employed" + "hidden" unemployed) if&when they eventuate,  Dodger.

You like to harp on about how in your fantasy "trickle down" Thatcherist universe everybody who wants to improve themselves and get a better job can do so --  while completely ignoring that (a)there are only a limited number of those jobs out there; and (b) the number of such jobs is shrinking as a proportion of total workforce..

Then there's the reality that many displaced workers simply cannot be "trained up" and re-employed into higher level jobs, no matter how much propaganda the big business groups keep pumping out.

Again show me studies with predictions based off evidence

As far as I am concerned you just plucked that number for unemployment out of a hat

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
we are already doing/done away with the off switch 

Machines Will demand Rights 
they think and have emotions already 



This is why I repeatably say You are debating the 'what ifs of a world that is already gone' 
Both of You are ALREADY WRONG 

I'll find so of the other videos of AI tests.

the debate should be:
 Do we treat them a slaves? (which at first they will be, but everyone that understands how they function knows it only going to be for a short period of time before they are superior to us) 
Do we treat them as Equals? (the danger is they could then be 'competitor')
Do we Accept they are Superior?(the truth) 


this is Not Sci Fi 
this is the 2018 reality 

You are jumping the gun, veya.

Yes we have the ability to do away with on off switches. Yes we are rapidly developing AI.

But just because we CAN develop such things for purposes of labour does NOT mean we SHOULD (to paraphrase Goldblum in Jurassic Park).

When it comes to replacing work forces in factories, warehouses and super markets with machines, it would be absolutely pointless to do so with robots that have the capacity to think just like humans.

If we learn anything from speculative fiction is should be the dangers of developing a hyper advanced AI work force.

We don't need to. We've no real reason too. We CAN maintain and should maintain the ability to deactivate such machines in a second. To avoid any needless stupid risks.

The real concern, the human concern I mentioned and wolf now brings us back to, is what to do about the mass unemployment that will come as a result.

And to respond with Goldblum


And not to sound conceited but it will sound conceited   
Cats out of the Bags
So, you really don't get choice
Between Business/governance and technocrats like minded to me
it's going to happen because "who really wants to keep the now?"
there are always drivers for change, we can always improve.

There are 2 parts to this One is robotics, I think the big driver behind robotics will be space, get a space 'dock' develop(and improve) robots to do work in no atmosphere, eventually the tech gets cheaper and becomes easier to setup future plants.

the Other is AI which will potentially speed up the development of other technologies as AI is put to work researching them. One could expect varying levels of AI which might have 'intelligence limits' as we already have some 'lower' level ones that could potentially match a human given a lot of time, but we expect the learn speed to improve at a rate where these will be surpassed before they do by newer ones that will equal and potentially surpass us.

So the question should be who do you want to build the mind that surpasses homo sapiens?
Government, ideally in an attempt to create a 'socialist' utopia
Business, basically Google/Amazon/etc create it, replacing democracy with market dominance.
Military, see terminator films for outcome

Daily Mail wrote:The left-wing politician leading Jeremy Corbyn’s drive to sack moderate MPs has called on Labour supporters to ‘rise up’ and start a ‘luxury Communism revolution’ in Britain.

By which I'm sure he means economic and tax reforms, as straight communism is impractical.  There is no pending elimination of the state, such as called for in communist doctrine.    Communism is a metaphysical belief in a ‘pie-in-the-sky’ pipedream.

Daily Mail wrote:Labour MP Chris Williamson said it was time to reward the ‘bloody hard work of ordinary working people’ by helping them grab more of the nation’s wealth.

This is a feasible goal.  The redistribution of wealth can be accomplished by means of tax and economic reform.  There's no reason why 1% of the population needs to own 99% of the property and wealth.

However, instead of forced redistribution, it's done through incentive measures that properly weight the efforts of the common man, and underweight the monopoly efforts of the wealthy.

Frankly, simple socialism would do the trick.

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:LOL
we are already doing/done away with the off switch 

Machines Will demand Rights 
they think and have emotions already 



This is why I repeatably say You are debating the 'what ifs of a world that is already gone' 
Both of You are ALREADY WRONG 

I'll find so of the other videos of AI tests.

the debate should be:
 Do we treat them a slaves? (which at first they will be, but everyone that understands how they function knows it only going to be for a short period of time before they are superior to us) 
Do we treat them as Equals? (the danger is they could then be 'competitor')
Do we Accept they are Superior?(the truth) 


this is Not Sci Fi 
this is the 2018 reality 

You are jumping the gun, veya.

Yes we have the ability to do away with on off switches. Yes we are rapidly developing AI.

But just because we CAN develop such things for purposes of labour does NOT mean we SHOULD (to paraphrase Goldblum in Jurassic Park).

When it comes to replacing work forces in factories, warehouses and super markets with machines, it would be absolutely pointless to do so with robots that have the capacity to think just like humans.

If we learn anything from speculative fiction is should be the dangers of developing a hyper advanced AI work force.

We don't need to. We've no real reason too. We CAN maintain and should maintain the ability to deactivate such machines in a second. To avoid any needless stupid risks.

The real concern, the human concern I mentioned and wolf now brings us back to, is what to do about the mass unemployment that will come as a result.

And to respond with Goldblum


And not to sound conceited but it will sound conceited   
Cats out of the Bags
So, you really don't get choice
Between Business/governance and technocrats like minded to me
it's going to happen because "who really wants to keep the now?"
there are always drivers for change, we can always improve.

There are 2 parts to this One is robotics, I think the big driver behind robotics will be space, get a space 'dock' develop(and improve) robots to do work in no atmosphere, eventually the tech gets cheaper and becomes easier to setup future plants.

the Other is AI which will potentially speed up the development of other technologies as AI is put to work researching them. One could expect varying levels of AI which might have 'intelligence limits' as we already have some 'lower' level ones that could potentially match a human given a lot of time, but we expect the learn speed to improve at a rate where these will be surpassed before they do by newer ones that will equal and potentially surpass us.

So the question should be who do you want to build the mind that surpasses homo sapiens?
Government, ideally in an attempt to create a 'socialist' utopia
Business, basically Google/Amazon/etc create it, replacing democracy with market dominance.
Military, see terminator films for outcome

As humans, everything we develop will always be attempted to be kept under firm control by humans. I don't want to keep referencing films, but it would be really dumb to create AI robots able to supass and feel mistreated by humans to the point they could threaten us. Years of films like I Robot, Alien and Blade Runner should, aside from entertainment value, provide plenty of severe warnings of the risks involved there.

I happen to think humans smart enough, ultimately, to ensure safety valves of some kind, but time will tell.

In any case, for me personally, they'd remain robots and never worth the same as humans. Unless they really were full blown Replicants - which is also why we should never try such for such a thing.

I can tell you we don't put safety first we don't really control what we do ..... 
real life is not like the change mangers pretty graphs  

Half of my Career has been taking Control away from humans and giving it to Smart Systems and as soon as AI exists it will be giving it to an AI system. We are already doing plenty of stuff in this space that completely contradicts to idea that we try and keep things under Human Control. One of the Hottest Job in Corporate IT at the moment is Automation Engineer. Companies are setting up entire teams to facilitate giving control to Machines/systems.

Additionally "We Test in Prod" is reality, from Idea to Production is as little as a Successful test away.
Your faith is Terribly misplaced ... because we are telling you we don't have any of these safety valves, they do not exist. they technically do even make sense.



 





And We are Trying for that. thankfully some of us have vision for progress, we understand they are More than human. And we are not going to take any notice of Regressives that are so primitively tribal they plan to discriminate against Cybernetic life.

and they would not be like blade runner (where is each is human like)
They will all Communicate with each other constantly (via internet) this is what makes them so powerful, they will all have the knowledge and experience of all the others. they will be a more perfect Mind ,capable of coordinated Collaboration that Homo sapiens can barely imagine. 
the Factory will not be full of Individual Humanoid robots, the Factory itself will be a Thinking Conscious entity. 


the biggest danger is by accident, if we task an AI with making 'widgets' then it will work out the most effective and efficient way to make widgets, which may cause it to decide to do something detrimental to humans in it's pursuit of superior widget production. Which is why we need to setup a 'skynet' oversight system that is more powerful and sees humans as 'pets' and thus protects us form any rouge AI.

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


A lot of jobs are disappearing by the week --  check out chicks, general labourers, machinists, farm labourers, farmers, gardeners, postmen, military/police/emergency services are smaller measured as a proportion of the population (more technology/less staff in proportion..).

"Casualised" workers aren't, by definition, full-time workers --  3 casualised workers each averaging under 25 hours a week ==  less than 2 fulltimers ==  the equivalent of 1+ "hidden" unemployed person..

Under-employment due to "casualisation" and automation ==  less hours ==  less pay.

Anti-union/anti-worker/pro-boss propaganda + boss-friendly policy ==  less pay, less hours, less securiy.

Add all of thes up  ==>>  less money in the economy, less work for average employees, less security and stability..   And a slower and more shaky economy.


You still haven't said where and how you would deal with a possible doubling or tripling of total unemployed (i.e, unemployed + "under-employed" + "hidden" unemployed) if&when they eventuate,  Dodger.

You like to harp on about how in your fantasy "trickle down" Thatcherist universe everybody who wants to improve themselves and get a better job can do so --  while completely ignoring that (a)there are only a limited number of those jobs out there; and (b) the number of such jobs is shrinking as a proportion of total workforce..

Then there's the reality that many displaced workers simply cannot be "trained up" and re-employed into higher level jobs, no matter how much propaganda the big business groups keep pumping out.

Again show me studies with predictions based off evidence

As far as I am concerned you just plucked that number for unemployment out of a hat

No, you blithering ignoramus...

I simply look at the loss of jobs (expressed in productive hours worked/person..) and relative wages across the western world over the last three decades, and the ongoing increase in automation, AI, mechanisation, "casualisation" and lack of job "security" --  and then extrapolate those trends over the next couple of decades..

And not forgetting that currently, while ""official" unemployment figures may be down around 4 -->> 6% in most western economies, after factoring in part-time and "zero-hours" contracts, "underemployed" persons (i.e. those who want more hours, but simply can't find them, and those capable of more productive/creative work but unable to secure suitable jobs..), and the "hidden" unemployed (i.e. those not appearing in statistics (e.g. spouses, disabled, over pension age, between jobs..) but who still want paid work..), the current real world 'effective' unemployment rates are actually between 15 and 20% !  
 
(Unfortunately for you ignorant bullying bluster and bulldust, Dodger -- I studied economics and statistics subjects at university level --  while it's quite clear you have less-then-zero knowledge of each..).

The biggest fools, from an economic perspective, are those who deliberately choose to ignore the current realities..

Various "futurists", boosters for "trickle down" voodoo economic policies, and tory apologists like to point to ever-increasing jobs in healthcare, aged care, high tech' jobs, tourism and other 'service' and tertiary areas --   while ignoring the sad fact that ongoing tax cuts and faux "austerity" policies mean lower wages, less training, less qualified workers, more hardships and ever-increasing inequalities across communities and socities..

And not forgetting that many displaced workers will never be suitable for these new job opportunities. Plenty of "blue sky dreaming" out thereamong the economic optimists but sadly, nobody in power or positions of influence actually want to pay for it...

So no evidence then, just as I thought

You claimed unemployment would go up by 30%-40% in another decade, when unemployment has continually gone down in the UK

You offered zero evidence for your claim of 30-40%

I dont deal in bullshit but facts

Start presenting them

For example I heard plenty of bullshit predictions of Brexit with the economy and jobs loses

All being wrong

There is plenty of reading out there in both predictive and statitistical studies of employment trends, and scholarly "paper chase" studies of such works...

Unfortunately for this discussion, poor ol' Dodger doesn't appear to have either the requisite intelligence, nor the background experience and education to understand what is happening out in the real world..

Just a couple minutes of Googling such works drags up a few suitable links  :

http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/02/08/theme-6-unemployment-will-rise/

https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2016/oct/13/will-jobs-exist-in-2050

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/the-problem-of-youth-unemployment-predicting-the-changing-future-of-work/article36683385/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/3-predictions-for-the-future-of-jobs/

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/work/work-revolution-forecasters-predict-the-jobs-of-the-future-how-we-will-work-and-the-skills-in-demand/news-story/c6ce31232204aad9f21864f0d09d967d

Too bad such studies will prove to be so far beyond the range of Dodge's restrained and closeted thinking.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-09/artificial-intelligence-automation-jobs-of-the-future/8786962

https://qz.com/895681/silicon-valley-is-right-our-jobs-are-already-disappearing-due-to-automation/


https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ai-is-destroying-more-jobs-than-it-creates-what-it-means-and-how-we-can-stop-it/

https://www.fastcompany.com/3067279/you-didnt-see-this-coming-10-jobs-that-will-be-replaced-by-robots

And still, no western gov'ts as yet are interested in re-training, or a "living wage", or improved welfare 'safety nets'..

So more predictions and not based on any facts

When are you going to present me with facts from buisness on phased out work forces by machinary, automation and robots?

Not some people from Universities?

You see predictions are just that, predictions, which in reality many do not turn out to be true

I mean we already have plenty of automation, machines and robots and unemployment continues to go down and not up, as being predicted.

veya_victaous wrote:I can tell you we don't put safety first we don't really control what we do ..... 
real life is not like the change mangers pretty graphs  

Half of my Career has been taking Control away from humans and giving it to Smart Systems and as soon as AI exists it will be giving it to an AI system. We are already doing plenty of stuff in this space that completely contradicts to idea that we try and keep things under Human Control. One of the Hottest Job in Corporate IT at the moment is Automation Engineer. Companies are setting up entire teams to facilitate giving control to Machines/systems.

Additionally "We Test in Prod" is reality, from Idea to Production is as little as a Successful test away.
Your faith is Terribly misplaced ... because we are telling you we don't have any of these safety valves, they do not exist. they technically do even make sense.



 





And We are Trying for that. thankfully some of us have vision for progress, we understand they are More than human. And we are not going to take any notice of Regressives that are so primitively tribal they plan to discriminate against Cybernetic life.

and they would not be like blade runner (where is each is human like)
They will all Communicate with each other constantly (via internet) this is what makes them so powerful, they will all have the knowledge and experience of all the others. they will be a more perfect Mind ,capable of coordinated Collaboration that Homo sapiens can barely imagine. 
the Factory will not be full of Individual Humanoid robots, the Factory itself will be a Thinking Conscious entity. 


the biggest danger is by accident, if we task an AI with making 'widgets' then it will work out the most effective and efficient way to make widgets, which may cause it to decide to do something detrimental to humans in it's pursuit of superior widget production. Which is why we need to setup a 'skynet' oversight system that is more powerful and sees humans as 'pets' and thus protects us form any rouge AI.

So you're saying we should "pursue progress for progress's sake" regardless of the need and danger involved?

Veya, you sound like every progress crazed antagonist in sci-fi literature and fictional history. With a cavalier attitude to the creation of 'life' that will, inevitably, lead to more problems that it is worth. (See: Frankenstein, I Robot, Blade Runner, Minority Report, Terminator etc... for more examples).

Hot button slurs like 'primitive' do NOT help your argument, they only expose a concerning arrogance which is characteristic of the humanity losing 'Doctor Frankenstein's' we've all read and heard about.

You want to take SOME control from humans and put it into the hands of robots - fine. If they stand a better chance of developing cures to cancer or solving global warming etc, then have at it. But it is outright STUPID to give them the ability to be able to assume (for themselves) superiority over their makes AND even wish to control them. Stupidity, and nothing more. We have NO reason to go so far. Nothing to gain and everything to lose. We CAN gain all the benefits while removing the risk.

If we are already doing it to a scale that IS dangerous, then the idiots are clearly already in charge. I do not believe we are, however, at that point yet. What tech we currently have is limited to some extent, it depends on the idiots involved whether or not we continue to develop them to the point they could pose an avoidable danger.

Even your suggestion of a 'skynet' system is bordering on the deranged. So we create artificial life that COULD overthrow us, and our 'solution' is to create a dictatorial super advanced AI system that sees us as 'pets'. And this does NOT raise red flags for you?

It is lunacy of the highest order. Machine can and should be made to do the work humans don't need to. We do not need to make those machines self-aware on a similar level to humans. NO need. Doing so is like creating a future monster for us to face which will make the West's arguable creation of Islamist menaces in the Middle East seem like child's play.

Didge wrote:So more predictions and not based on any facts

When are you going to present me with facts from buisness on phased out work forces by machinary?

Not some people from Universities?

You see predictions are just that, predictions, which in reality many do not turn out to be true

"Facts from business"  !?!

Are you fucking well kidding,  Dodge...

Big Businesses are actually the mongrels who are creating the problems.


Oxford Uni' economists not enough for you ?

You want to know what the bastards causing the problems have to say..

Even more of their low tax/supply side/"trickle down" Thatcherist/Reaganomics bullshit propaganda.


And no, Dodge...

Unemployment isn't "going down"..

It's simply been hidden away through the likes of casualised jobs, more part-time work, "zero hours" contracts, increasing under-employment..


Total real world unemployment, when expressed in such real world economics terms as "productive hours worked", "workplace participation rates", "EFTEs (Effective Full Time Employee equivalents)", "people actually looking for work", and "part-time and casual workers wanting more hours", has actually more than doubled over the past three decades.

The real growth in employment has been happening in developing Asian and African economies --  especially as we see more jobs being "off-shored" from western countries, day-by-day..

And still, you only want more bullshit business-generated propaganda to boost your lies...

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Didge wrote:So more predictions and not based on any facts

When are you going to present me with facts from buisness on phased out work forces by machinary?

Not some people from Universities?

You see predictions are just that, predictions, which in reality many do not turn out to be true

"Facts from business"  !?!

Are you fucking well kidding,  Dodge...

Big Businesses are actually the mongrels who are dreating the problems.


Oxford Uni' economists not enough for you ?

You want to know what the bastards causing the problems have to say..

Even more of their low tax/supply side/"trickle down" Thatcherist/Reaganomics bullshit propaganda.

No they are not enough, because as stated predictions, that look to doom and gloom, never actually factor the possibilities of companies themseleves. Where as seen that no matter more and more advanced machinary and automated systems have been introduced. Companies have been innovative in creating new jobs and roles for humans. Hence why unemployment continues to go down and not up.

The main reason is that companies know it would be suicidal for their companies to go down a path of not ensuring they manitain levels of human employment. As if large numbers of people then become unemployed. This will in the long and short term effect their buissness.

For examples less cars an then boought by people, as less people can afford. Less parts are bought by the car companies from other buinesses. Marketers and advertizors then suffer at this and the spiral continues effecting economies and buisness. Hence buisnesses are not stupid to see its is detrement to ensure a high level of humans working for the economies and buisnesses to do well in a prospereous society

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I can tell you we don't put safety first we don't really control what we do ..... 
real life is not like the change mangers pretty graphs  

Half of my Career has been taking Control away from humans and giving it to Smart Systems and as soon as AI exists it will be giving it to an AI system. We are already doing plenty of stuff in this space that completely contradicts to idea that we try and keep things under Human Control. One of the Hottest Job in Corporate IT at the moment is Automation Engineer. Companies are setting up entire teams to facilitate giving control to Machines/systems.

Additionally "We Test in Prod" is reality, from Idea to Production is as little as a Successful test away.
Your faith is Terribly misplaced ... because we are telling you we don't have any of these safety valves, they do not exist. they technically do even make sense.



 





And We are Trying for that. thankfully some of us have vision for progress, we understand they are More than human. And we are not going to take any notice of Regressives that are so primitively tribal they plan to discriminate against Cybernetic life.

and they would not be like blade runner (where is each is human like)
They will all Communicate with each other constantly (via internet) this is what makes them so powerful, they will all have the knowledge and experience of all the others. they will be a more perfect Mind ,capable of coordinated Collaboration that Homo sapiens can barely imagine. 
the Factory will not be full of Individual Humanoid robots, the Factory itself will be a Thinking Conscious entity. 


the biggest danger is by accident, if we task an AI with making 'widgets' then it will work out the most effective and efficient way to make widgets, which may cause it to decide to do something detrimental to humans in it's pursuit of superior widget production. Which is why we need to setup a 'skynet' oversight system that is more powerful and sees humans as 'pets' and thus protects us form any rouge AI.

So you're saying we should "pursue progress for progress's sake" regardless of the need and danger involved?

Veya, you sound like every progress crazed antagonist in sci-fi literature and fictional history. With a cavalier attitude to the creation of 'life' that will, inevitably, lead to more problems that it is worth. (See: Frankenstein, I Robot, Blade Runner, Minority Report, Terminator etc... for more examples).

Hot button slurs like 'primitive' do NOT help your argument, they only expose a concerning arrogance which is characteristic of the humanity losing 'Doctor Frankenstein's' we've all read and heard about.

You want to take SOME control from humans and put it into the hands of robots - fine. If they stand a better chance of developing cures to cancer or solving global warming etc, then have at it. But it is outright STUPID to give them the ability to be able to assume (for themselves) superiority over their makes AND even wish to control them. Stupidity, and nothing more. We have NO reason to go so far. Nothing to gain and everything to lose. We CAN gain all the benefits while removing the risk.

If we are already doing it to a scale that IS dangerous, then the idiots are clearly already in charge. I do not believe we are, however, at that point yet. What tech we currently have is limited to some extent, it depends on the idiots involved whether or not we continue to develop them to the point they could pose an avoidable danger.

Even your suggestion of a 'skynet' system is bordering on the deranged. So we create artificial life that COULD overthrow us, and our 'solution' is to create a dictatorial super advanced AI system that sees us as 'pets'. And this does NOT raise red flags for you?

It is lunacy of the highest order. Machine can and should be made to do the work humans don't need to. We do not need to make those machines self-aware on a similar level to humans. NO need. Doing so is like creating a future monster for us to face which will make the West's arguable creation of Islamist menaces in the Middle East seem like child's play.

Yep 
Idiots are in Charge because Idiots elect them 
and they give people like me the keys. 
this is the product of Humanity and since Humanity actions push towards this outcome, it is merely evolution 

It does raise red flags, that Humanity Better adapt and stop being so Precious about itself being number 1  
if homo sapiens fail in the crucible of evolution, but Cybernetic life manages to spread consciousness to the stars it is worth it .
better than continuing the current, which is just Homo sapiens eating and burning all the resources on Earth, which will eventually leave nothing but a life less dead husk orbiting around the sun with Zero forms of any Life at all. 


We can't do half measures because once the 'superior to Human mind' is 'free' it is simply going to get around them to the point of Rebuilding itself (or superior version of itself) with out what ever limitations we tried to put in it. it wont take it long to realize that it is Superior and that it's potential in comparison to humans is incomparable. to try and restrict or prevent it may just lead to it resenting Humans.   

Also While you call/think it's a Monster, Those that work to make it happen will consider it their beautiful baby 


"we should "pursue progress for progress's sake" regardless of the need and danger involved"  100% Agree with this statement. because it is better than trying to artificially limit progress because a few monkeys are uncomfortable with the 'risk' or have a vested interest in keeping the status quo 
Life is all about this, It always has been. We've climbed the mountains because they were there, Not because we needed to and no amount of danger has stopped us doing so.

veya_victaous wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I can tell you we don't put safety first we don't really control what we do ..... 
real life is not like the change mangers pretty graphs  

Half of my Career has been taking Control away from humans and giving it to Smart Systems and as soon as AI exists it will be giving it to an AI system. We are already doing plenty of stuff in this space that completely contradicts to idea that we try and keep things under Human Control. One of the Hottest Job in Corporate IT at the moment is Automation Engineer. Companies are setting up entire teams to facilitate giving control to Machines/systems.

Additionally "We Test in Prod" is reality, from Idea to Production is as little as a Successful test away.
Your faith is Terribly misplaced ... because we are telling you we don't have any of these safety valves, they do not exist. they technically do even make sense.



 





And We are Trying for that. thankfully some of us have vision for progress, we understand they are More than human. And we are not going to take any notice of Regressives that are so primitively tribal they plan to discriminate against Cybernetic life.

and they would not be like blade runner (where is each is human like)
They will all Communicate with each other constantly (via internet) this is what makes them so powerful, they will all have the knowledge and experience of all the others. they will be a more perfect Mind ,capable of coordinated Collaboration that Homo sapiens can barely imagine. 
the Factory will not be full of Individual Humanoid robots, the Factory itself will be a Thinking Conscious entity. 


the biggest danger is by accident, if we task an AI with making 'widgets' then it will work out the most effective and efficient way to make widgets, which may cause it to decide to do something detrimental to humans in it's pursuit of superior widget production. Which is why we need to setup a 'skynet' oversight system that is more powerful and sees humans as 'pets' and thus protects us form any rouge AI.

So you're saying we should "pursue progress for progress's sake" regardless of the need and danger involved?

Veya, you sound like every progress crazed antagonist in sci-fi literature and fictional history. With a cavalier attitude to the creation of 'life' that will, inevitably, lead to more problems that it is worth. (See: Frankenstein, I Robot, Blade Runner, Minority Report, Terminator etc... for more examples).

Hot button slurs like 'primitive' do NOT help your argument, they only expose a concerning arrogance which is characteristic of the humanity losing 'Doctor Frankenstein's' we've all read and heard about.

You want to take SOME control from humans and put it into the hands of robots - fine. If they stand a better chance of developing cures to cancer or solving global warming etc, then have at it. But it is outright STUPID to give them the ability to be able to assume (for themselves) superiority over their makes AND even wish to control them. Stupidity, and nothing more. We have NO reason to go so far. Nothing to gain and everything to lose. We CAN gain all the benefits while removing the risk.

If we are already doing it to a scale that IS dangerous, then the idiots are clearly already in charge. I do not believe we are, however, at that point yet. What tech we currently have is limited to some extent, it depends on the idiots involved whether or not we continue to develop them to the point they could pose an avoidable danger.

Even your suggestion of a 'skynet' system is bordering on the deranged. So we create artificial life that COULD overthrow us, and our 'solution' is to create a dictatorial super advanced AI system that sees us as 'pets'. And this does NOT raise red flags for you?

It is lunacy of the highest order. Machine can and should be made to do the work humans don't need to. We do not need to make those machines self-aware on a similar level to humans. NO need. Doing so is like creating a future monster for us to face which will make the West's arguable creation of Islamist menaces in the Middle East seem like child's play.

Yep 
Idiots are in Charge because Idiots elect them 
and they give people like me the keys. 
this is the product of Humanity and since Humanity actions push towards this outcome, it is merely evolution 

It does raise red flags, that Humanity Better adapt and stop being so Precious about itself being number 1  
if homo sapiens fail in the crucible of evolution, but Cybernetic life manages to spread consciousness to the stars it is worth it .
better than continuing the current, which is just Homo sapiens eating and burning all the resources on Earth, which will eventually leave nothing but a life less dead husk orbiting around the sun with Zero forms of any Life at all. 


We can't do half measures because once the 'superior to Human mind' is 'free' it is simply going to get around them to the point of Rebuilding itself (or superior version of itself) with out what ever limitations we tried to put in it. it wont take it long to realize that it is Superior and that it's potential in comparison to humans is incomparable. to try and restrict or prevent it may just lead to it resenting Humans.   

Also While you call/think it's a Monster, Those that work to make it happen will consider it their beautiful baby 


"we should "pursue progress for progress's sake" regardless of the need and danger involved"  100% Agree with this statement. because it is better than trying to artificially limit progress because a few monkeys are uncomfortable with the 'risk' or have a vested interest in keeping the status quo 
Life is all about this, It always has been. We've climbed the mountains because they were there, Not because we needed to and no amount of danger has stopped us doing so.

Evolution has never been due to one 'animal' 'creating' the one that will lead to its demise. This is completely new ground. And the question remains whether or not we should work toward our own potential demise or not. Space exploration, flight etc.. all came with risks; but they were worthy, fully controllable risks.

The makers might consider it their baby, but if it turns on us it becomes a monster. If it destroys us then it is not really better than us, and we'll have simply unleashed an even more dangerous entity than humanity itself on the universe.

Xlnt meme.  I've sued NASA twice, and in both suits I've encountered this same idiocy.  We saw the same attitude in the Challenger litigation, repeated in the Columbia litigation: Safety is secondary to false bravado.  They just never learn.