Humans are not fond of contemplating a future where there is no future. (could be root cause of MWA)
We like the good dreams, and only enjoy the nightmares when they do not threaten our belief in our future.
Right now, those of us contemplating a Human future threatened by Technological Unemployment, and wondering how we will survive a transition to Machine World are few in number. There has been a surge in articles about the ‘rise of the machines’. I don’t believe most of those writing on the subject believe we are racing toward a seminal moment in our history on this planet which could determine the survival of our society and result in a catastrophic economic collapse.
Yesterday was May Day. Technological Unemployment and the approach of an event horizon we should not want to cross were not hot topics. Income Inequality and raising the minimum wage pretty much dominated the day. Then there was this in the Independent:
So, facing possible futures of incalculable benefits and risks, the experts are surely doing everything possible to ensure the best outcome, right? Wrong. If a superior alien civilisation sent us a message saying, “We’ll arrive in a few decades,” would we just reply, “OK, call us when you get here – we’ll leave the lights on”? Probably not – but this is more or less what is happening with AI. Although we are facing potentially the best or worst thing to happen to humanity in history, little serious research is devoted to these issues outside non-profit institutes such as the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, the Future of Humanity Institute, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, and the Future Life Institute.
The Independent Stephen Hawking: ‘Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence – but are we taking AI seriously enough?’ STEPHEN HAWKING , STUART RUSSELL , MAX TEGMARK , FRANK WILCZEK
What if we were busy arguing about income inequality, and we missed the opportunity Hawking called “the biggest event in human history”?
What if we were preoccupied with the income inequality discussion, and failed to realize government’s role funding the rise of the machines and crafting regulations friendly to automation, robotics and investment in capital vs. labor?
(That was a rhetorical question.:)