[p2p-research] Tick, tock, tick, tock… BING

[Paul D. Fernhout]

Ryan wrote:
> Human level computational intelligence.
> [snip: from http://www.vetta.org/2009/12/tick-tock-tick-tock-bing/ ]
> Right, so my prediction for the last 10 years has been for roughly
> human level AGI in the year 2025 (though I also predict that sceptics
> will deny that it’s happened when it does!) This year I’ve tried to
> come up with something a bit more precise. In doing so what I’ve found
> is that while my mode is about 2025, my expected value is actually a
> bit higher at 2028. This is not because I’ve become more pessimistic
> during the year, rather it’s because this time I’ve tried to quantify
> my beliefs more systematically and found that the probability I assign
> between 2030 and 2040 drags the expectation up. Perhaps more useful is
> my 90% credibility region, which from my current belief distribution
> comes out at 2018 to 2036.

With all the focus on the "singularity" (AI bootstrapping itself to 
superhuman capabilities, which can be questioned) it seems people easily 
miss the simple idea that if robots and AI are just close to human 
capabilities, they can replace most human workers, especially as many tasks 
can be re-engineered to be less demanding of some skills. That would be the 
end of economics as we know it, since there would be no way for most humans 
to sell their labor in the market. I'd suggest it is happening even now.

The tragedy in all this is that the trends are obvious between AI, robotics, 
and 3D printing (and social networking and free software and other things) 
that mainstream economics based around scarcity-management and the sale of 
human labor is ending in, at the latest, a couple of decades, but 
governments are not taking any steps to deal with this in a coherent and 
positive way. (Like embrace it.) From: :-)
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobless_recovery
"""
While this may seem to be purely a technical argument about whether such 
devices can exist or how soon we will have them (or even, questioning just 
what we can do with the computers and robots and flexible manufacturing 
devices we have even now), the consequences in terms of planning social 
policy and related economic issues are profound. For example, what do fifty 
year projections for, say, the US Social Security trust fund mean if the 
entire monetary economy as we know it may not exist in two decades? What 
would health care costs be in 2029 if we could mass-produce robotic doctors, 
robotic ambulances, and even robotic nursebots (like Sebastian Thrun has 
worked towards)? Or what would costs be if people could print out most 
medical devices (or even most drugs) at home on demand using nanotech-based 
3D printers? Likewise, two decades is about how long it would take a child 
born in 2009 to enter the work force after college in 2030 -- what type of 
jobs or culture should such children be preparing for if 3D printing 
replaces much manufacturing, and if robotics/AI and a freely produced 
commons replaces most services? What would the economy be like in even just 
ten years if society decided much of the work done globally now is mainly 
about guarding or is make-work based on scarcity assumptions that are 
out-of-date just in relation to technology we have today (especially given 
movements towards voluntary simplicity or environmentalism)? If we were to 
embrace the prospect of a gift economy and global abundance through 3D 
printing, improved robotics, better design, better materials, and so on, 
then our societal spending patterns might shift greatly, even now, in terms 
of less worries about long-term deficit spending to create millions of R&D 
jobs today developing advanced technology under free and open source 
licenses. In that sense, a gift economy may be an example of a 
self-fulfilling prophecy.
"""

--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/