Haroldus and Guihelmus
The Near Future - A Conversation
Technology is advancing really fast - exponentially - and it is hard to imagine what the world will be like in the very near future. Here Haroldus and Guihelmus discuss a few of the implications.
G: The world is changing incredibly quickly - most people seem to be distracted by supermodels and celebrities, and their eye is off the ball. Politics cannot respond, as we are approaching a world where the 4 year term of the average politician means that the world into which we elected the politician to act on our behalf, will be quite different to the world they end up acting in. Legislation will have a hard time keeping up.
H: Yeah, it is really speeding up. One thing that will change things radically is energy - solar is doubling in capacity worldwide every other year, and the rate at which it is being implemented is increasing. We are only 7 or so doublings away from 100% capacity - that is 14 years from 2013- and it may come even sooner than that. That is just solar, other forms of renewable energy are also on an exponential growth curve.
People underestimate the power of exponential doubling. We think in linear terms,and imagine things going forward as though we were walking sedately along a beach. Our imaginations simply do not deal well with this kind of change, and so we are blind to it.
G: The world will change completely. For one thing, the oil rich countries in the Middle East are on a clock, in terms of their income. So is the entire fossil fuel industry. Not to mention the nuclear one. Not only is the implementation of solar exponential, the cost per unit installation is also falling at an exponential rate, and efficiency keeps on improving. Obviously, the cost cannot drop below zero, but it is going to approach negligible levels.
H: How can a cost of a product approach zero?
G: As automation of manufacture increases, with Artificial Intelligence and robots taking over almost all aspects of the production chain - from mining through to manufacture and installation, and operation of the facilities, the cost will depend largely on the cost of energy. That is about to collapse - once solar and wind reach 100%, and there is surplus capacity, the cost of energy will become zero, or as close to zero as matters. This is going to occur really soon, and the economic implications are staggering.
H: This is also only one tiny part of the picture. Computers are speeding up, and becoming more intelligent. Design and manufacture are forging ahead. 3d printing is expanding its reach, and costs are plummeting there as well. All of these are not advancing in a linear manner, but exponentially. Change is occurring at such a rapid pace that simply keeping abreast of it is next to impossible - only computers can now analyse the volume of research data being produced. A human would not have enough hours in a day to simply sit and keep abreast of the research papers published in their own niche field, let alone across a wider spectrum of knowledge.
G: What will happen to people?To economies? To the concept of work?
H: This is a serious problem. As it is in the West, we already have a large segment of the population who are unemployable - no jobs exist any-more for them, and the pool of jobs keeps shrinking as AI becomes more capable. The concept of unemployment will need to change.
G: Do you think we will need to stop talking about the unemployed, and start a different conversation? Perhaps one where there is a minimum guaranteed living allowance.
H: This is a distinct possibility. As it is, pension age is now on an escalator, or soon will be,as lifespan advances. It will be a bit like the old fuel duty escalator, where fuel duty rose every year by a set amount, automatically.
One can envision a not-too-distant future where the concept of a pension will cease to make economic sense - indeed, it ceased to make economic sense some time ago, but the political will to do anything about it was absent. It is not feasible for people to work for 30 years, and then spend 20 - 30 years on 50 to 75% of their original wage, index linked. It just isn't sustainable.
G: So, you think that in addition to a minimum living allowance, this will be universal, irrespective of age. Pensions as such will cease to exist?
H: Yes. They may exist administratively, but to all intents and purposes will be indistinguishable from the ULA. This will also result in a massive cull of bureaucracy. If all citizens receive their U.L.A. this can be automated. No need to apply. No need to assess. No need to go to a welfare office. No need to back to work schemes. There may be specialist agencies that deal with people with specific needs, the disabled and infirm - but this would be a much smaller arm of government.
G: How would this be paid for? Through taxation?
H: Yes. One of the paradoxes of the current times, is that employment and productivity, for the first time in history, have become decoupled.
This is a direct result of automation and the application of AI to industry. The large companies are making tremendous profits. Taxation can generate the funds for the ULA.
G: Will people be penalised if they work,or will those wages be in addition to the ULA?
H: The ULA would be just that - universal. If someone earned above it, by taking a job or operating a business, then they simply would have more income.
G: What really amazes me, is how little people seem to be aware of the massive changes that are about to be unleashed on the world.
H: Certainly,those in the political classes, who are aware of this, are playing it down. However, every now and again the media reports on a Parliamentary Committee or a statement is made by a government minister that gets two lines in the mainstream media. I suspect this is largely so, because the reporters themselves are unaware of the issues, and are unaware of the pace of change.
G: They should be more aware - after all, the media landscape has been radically altered in the past few years, and even in the past few months, the application of AI to reader reactions to media stories has changed the pattern of media consumption across the globe. Each media item or youtube video now becomes a product, the consumption of which is driven by big data analysis. So yes,journalists should be more aware of the changes that are taking place.
H: Sometimes they do respond - but what they forget is that just about any change that eventuates, will be transient - things are simply changing too quickly for any sort of stability to be reached. For example, the big data driven surge of Upworthy and sites using similar data driven tactics, is in all probability going to be overtaken by something else entirely that curves in from left field.
G: So,what are people going to do in this new, work-less world? Buddhists can retreat to their Ashrams, and not have to worry about using a begging bowl again. Orthodox Jews will be able to retreat to their yeshivas and immerse themselves in Talmudic study, without having to pay attention to the world beyond. But what of the rest of us? In hunter gatherer societies, the amount of labour was about 15 hours a week. So, human society probably won't collapse if the vast majority of people don't have to work for a living. We can manage it, I suppose. The question is, what will people do? Play music? Art? Sport? Join gangs? Just mess about? Or simply turn their backs on the world, and lose themselves in the highly developed virtual reality worlds that are just around the corner?
H: Yes, VR is a great concern. Once it becomes realistic enough, the real world will just seem too slow and uninteresting. For many teenagers that is already the case - reality pales in comparison, VR worlds in games are much more active and much more interactive spaces. The real world will not compete, and people,or large swathes of people, may just decide to plug in and tune out, so to speak. And the world will be run by robots.
G: To go back to energy - once energy becomes almost free, water then becomes almost free, as desalination is an energy problem. For that matter, once energy becomes almost free, it will become feasible to start to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere, using energy-intensive methods. It may even be possible to do currently unimaginable things to help rebuild the polar ice caps. Exponential growth, almost free energy, and increasingly capable AI, means that things that are currently unimaginable, may well become viable.
H: Computing power is advancing at an exponential rate. Along with the sheer power of the machines, come advances in artificial intelligence, and projects to mirror the human brain's architecture in the machine.
Programmes like SIRI and WATSON-like programs that exist in the cloud are learning rapidly through their hundreds of millions of daily interactions with people, and their algorithms are constantly being improved. They are becoming increasingly 'intelligent'. Software of this type is already being used in medicine and in lab research. The overall capability of these programmes is also increasing exponentially. SIRI in January 2014 would not be the same programme, with the same skill set, as the SIRI you were using in November 2013. Google's search engine and in-house AI is also rapidly increasing in intelligence and capability.
G: Basically, then, when it comes to even the very near future, all bets are off the table?
H: Not all bets. But predicting technological development under these conditions of growth is difficult.
I think we'll see 3-d printed buildings in the near future. Entire aeroplanes and cars will be printed, not just selected components as at present. Organic printing will continue to advance. Biotech will continue to advance exponentially. We will see camera in contact lenses. We will start to see bionic prostheses that outperform their natural equivalents. Food will continue to drop in price,as will just about everything else. Employment levels will bottom out, but productivity will continue to increase. Manufacturing will be repatriated to home territory, blunting the edge of the economic dominance of China.
There will be great social dysfunction unless the politicians can manage the transition smoothly.
G: Will there not be a chance for political instability, as the wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a few?
H: Possibly, if the transition to a post-work society is not carefully handled. Politicians need to change their rhetoric, and stop talking about the lazy unemployed, shirkers, the work-shy and so forth. The dialogue needs to change, or this will breed discontent. In the next few years there will be great unevenness in the advance of these various technologies. The role of government should be to smooth this transition, and reduce the inequalities that will inevitably emerge - as they currently are emerging even now - as we are currently in the first stages of the great transition.
G: Are you saying a more socialist approach is in order?
H: No, this is not about socialism, nor conservatism, but realism. The world is about to radically change. Even a conservative government cannot keep on with the traditional attacks on the 'welfare state' that worked for it in the 1970s and 1980s, even as recently as the 90's. We are entering a new paradigm, a world where there will be no work for the vast majority of people. Being pro-work and anti-welfare in such a set of circumstances is ideological poppycock.
Conservatives can still be pro-business, and pro-entrepreneur, while aggressively protecting the populace by implementing a ULA. Indeed, as employment becomes increasingly decoupled from productivity, a party that does not have good, sensible policies in place for dealing with this, will possibly be unelectable.
My concern is that the current generation of politicians, with the exception of a small handful, are unaware of how rapidly the ground is shifting, are unaware of the need for radical policy making.
G: Are you saying that there needs to be more serious thinking going on, the type of thinking currently taking place extra-governmentally, at places like Singularity University?
H: Exactly. As the lady says in the video, technology alone won't save us.
G: I was reading up on self driving cars recently, what do you think about them?
H: Self driving cars will rapidly become ubiquitous....once it becomes clear that they are better than humans, the cost implications will drive regulation, and humans will probably not be allowed to get behind the wheel.
G: that sounds a bit extreme?
H: Not really. Think about it. If humans are more accident prone than the AI in the car, what insurer worth their salt will insure a human driver? If they do, premiums will be prohibitive. The social cost of accidents is massive - in the UK billions are spent treating accident victims: that load on the National Health Service would be relieved, saving billions in tax money. So, there would be pressure from central government to regulate human driving.
G: And if you drive for a living?
H: You won't.
The Near Future - A Conversation
Technology is advancing really fast - exponentially - and it is hard to imagine what the world will be like in the very near future. Here Haroldus and Guihelmus discuss a few of the implications.
G: The world is changing incredibly quickly - most people seem to be distracted by supermodels and celebrities, and their eye is off the ball. Politics cannot respond, as we are approaching a world where the 4 year term of the average politician means that the world into which we elected the politician to act on our behalf, will be quite different to the world they end up acting in. Legislation will have a hard time keeping up.
H: Yeah, it is really speeding up. One thing that will change things radically is energy - solar is doubling in capacity worldwide every other year, and the rate at which it is being implemented is increasing. We are only 7 or so doublings away from 100% capacity - that is 14 years from 2013- and it may come even sooner than that. That is just solar, other forms of renewable energy are also on an exponential growth curve.
G: The world will change completely. For one thing, the oil rich countries in the Middle East are on a clock, in terms of their income. So is the entire fossil fuel industry. Not to mention the nuclear one. Not only is the implementation of solar exponential, the cost per unit installation is also falling at an exponential rate, and efficiency keeps on improving. Obviously, the cost cannot drop below zero, but it is going to approach negligible levels.
H: How can a cost of a product approach zero?
G: As automation of manufacture increases, with Artificial Intelligence and robots taking over almost all aspects of the production chain - from mining through to manufacture and installation, and operation of the facilities, the cost will depend largely on the cost of energy. That is about to collapse - once solar and wind reach 100%, and there is surplus capacity, the cost of energy will become zero, or as close to zero as matters. This is going to occur really soon, and the economic implications are staggering.
H: This is also only one tiny part of the picture. Computers are speeding up, and becoming more intelligent. Design and manufacture are forging ahead. 3d printing is expanding its reach, and costs are plummeting there as well. All of these are not advancing in a linear manner, but exponentially. Change is occurring at such a rapid pace that simply keeping abreast of it is next to impossible - only computers can now analyse the volume of research data being produced. A human would not have enough hours in a day to simply sit and keep abreast of the research papers published in their own niche field, let alone across a wider spectrum of knowledge.
G: What will happen to people?To economies? To the concept of work?
H: This is a serious problem. As it is in the West, we already have a large segment of the population who are unemployable - no jobs exist any-more for them, and the pool of jobs keeps shrinking as AI becomes more capable. The concept of unemployment will need to change.
G: Do you think we will need to stop talking about the unemployed, and start a different conversation? Perhaps one where there is a minimum guaranteed living allowance.
H: This is a distinct possibility. As it is, pension age is now on an escalator, or soon will be,as lifespan advances. It will be a bit like the old fuel duty escalator, where fuel duty rose every year by a set amount, automatically.
G: So, you think that in addition to a minimum living allowance, this will be universal, irrespective of age. Pensions as such will cease to exist?
H: Yes. They may exist administratively, but to all intents and purposes will be indistinguishable from the ULA. This will also result in a massive cull of bureaucracy. If all citizens receive their U.L.A. this can be automated. No need to apply. No need to assess. No need to go to a welfare office. No need to back to work schemes. There may be specialist agencies that deal with people with specific needs, the disabled and infirm - but this would be a much smaller arm of government.
G: How would this be paid for? Through taxation?
H: Yes. One of the paradoxes of the current times, is that employment and productivity, for the first time in history, have become decoupled.
G: Will people be penalised if they work,or will those wages be in addition to the ULA?
H: The ULA would be just that - universal. If someone earned above it, by taking a job or operating a business, then they simply would have more income.
G: What really amazes me, is how little people seem to be aware of the massive changes that are about to be unleashed on the world.
H: Certainly,those in the political classes, who are aware of this, are playing it down. However, every now and again the media reports on a Parliamentary Committee or a statement is made by a government minister that gets two lines in the mainstream media. I suspect this is largely so, because the reporters themselves are unaware of the issues, and are unaware of the pace of change.
G: They should be more aware - after all, the media landscape has been radically altered in the past few years, and even in the past few months, the application of AI to reader reactions to media stories has changed the pattern of media consumption across the globe. Each media item or youtube video now becomes a product, the consumption of which is driven by big data analysis. So yes,journalists should be more aware of the changes that are taking place.
H: Sometimes they do respond - but what they forget is that just about any change that eventuates, will be transient - things are simply changing too quickly for any sort of stability to be reached. For example, the big data driven surge of Upworthy and sites using similar data driven tactics, is in all probability going to be overtaken by something else entirely that curves in from left field.
G: So,what are people going to do in this new, work-less world? Buddhists can retreat to their Ashrams, and not have to worry about using a begging bowl again. Orthodox Jews will be able to retreat to their yeshivas and immerse themselves in Talmudic study, without having to pay attention to the world beyond. But what of the rest of us? In hunter gatherer societies, the amount of labour was about 15 hours a week. So, human society probably won't collapse if the vast majority of people don't have to work for a living. We can manage it, I suppose. The question is, what will people do? Play music? Art? Sport? Join gangs? Just mess about? Or simply turn their backs on the world, and lose themselves in the highly developed virtual reality worlds that are just around the corner?
H: Yes, VR is a great concern. Once it becomes realistic enough, the real world will just seem too slow and uninteresting. For many teenagers that is already the case - reality pales in comparison, VR worlds in games are much more active and much more interactive spaces. The real world will not compete, and people,or large swathes of people, may just decide to plug in and tune out, so to speak. And the world will be run by robots.
G: To go back to energy - once energy becomes almost free, water then becomes almost free, as desalination is an energy problem. For that matter, once energy becomes almost free, it will become feasible to start to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere, using energy-intensive methods. It may even be possible to do currently unimaginable things to help rebuild the polar ice caps. Exponential growth, almost free energy, and increasingly capable AI, means that things that are currently unimaginable, may well become viable.
H: Computing power is advancing at an exponential rate. Along with the sheer power of the machines, come advances in artificial intelligence, and projects to mirror the human brain's architecture in the machine.
Programmes like SIRI and WATSON-like programs that exist in the cloud are learning rapidly through their hundreds of millions of daily interactions with people, and their algorithms are constantly being improved. They are becoming increasingly 'intelligent'. Software of this type is already being used in medicine and in lab research. The overall capability of these programmes is also increasing exponentially. SIRI in January 2014 would not be the same programme, with the same skill set, as the SIRI you were using in November 2013. Google's search engine and in-house AI is also rapidly increasing in intelligence and capability.
G: Basically, then, when it comes to even the very near future, all bets are off the table?
H: Not all bets. But predicting technological development under these conditions of growth is difficult.
I think we'll see 3-d printed buildings in the near future. Entire aeroplanes and cars will be printed, not just selected components as at present. Organic printing will continue to advance. Biotech will continue to advance exponentially. We will see camera in contact lenses. We will start to see bionic prostheses that outperform their natural equivalents. Food will continue to drop in price,as will just about everything else. Employment levels will bottom out, but productivity will continue to increase. Manufacturing will be repatriated to home territory, blunting the edge of the economic dominance of China.
There will be great social dysfunction unless the politicians can manage the transition smoothly.
G: Will there not be a chance for political instability, as the wealth gets concentrated in the hands of a few?
H: Possibly, if the transition to a post-work society is not carefully handled. Politicians need to change their rhetoric, and stop talking about the lazy unemployed, shirkers, the work-shy and so forth. The dialogue needs to change, or this will breed discontent. In the next few years there will be great unevenness in the advance of these various technologies. The role of government should be to smooth this transition, and reduce the inequalities that will inevitably emerge - as they currently are emerging even now - as we are currently in the first stages of the great transition.
G: Are you saying a more socialist approach is in order?
H: No, this is not about socialism, nor conservatism, but realism. The world is about to radically change. Even a conservative government cannot keep on with the traditional attacks on the 'welfare state' that worked for it in the 1970s and 1980s, even as recently as the 90's. We are entering a new paradigm, a world where there will be no work for the vast majority of people. Being pro-work and anti-welfare in such a set of circumstances is ideological poppycock.
Conservatives can still be pro-business, and pro-entrepreneur, while aggressively protecting the populace by implementing a ULA. Indeed, as employment becomes increasingly decoupled from productivity, a party that does not have good, sensible policies in place for dealing with this, will possibly be unelectable.
My concern is that the current generation of politicians, with the exception of a small handful, are unaware of how rapidly the ground is shifting, are unaware of the need for radical policy making.
G: Are you saying that there needs to be more serious thinking going on, the type of thinking currently taking place extra-governmentally, at places like Singularity University?
H: Exactly. As the lady says in the video, technology alone won't save us.
G: I was reading up on self driving cars recently, what do you think about them?
H: Self driving cars will rapidly become ubiquitous....once it becomes clear that they are better than humans, the cost implications will drive regulation, and humans will probably not be allowed to get behind the wheel.
G: that sounds a bit extreme?
H: Not really. Think about it. If humans are more accident prone than the AI in the car, what insurer worth their salt will insure a human driver? If they do, premiums will be prohibitive. The social cost of accidents is massive - in the UK billions are spent treating accident victims: that load on the National Health Service would be relieved, saving billions in tax money. So, there would be pressure from central government to regulate human driving.
G: And if you drive for a living?
H: You won't.
No comments:
Post a Comment