At 12:38 PM 14/01/00 -0500, Robin wrote:
>I don't think you have a clear picture of the economy you live in.
I'm sure you're right. I don't get out much.
>All those salesfolk and skyscrapers are not mainly there to move stuff
>from factories to your home, or even to design the things the factories
>make. They perform lots of other useful functions.
What, though, when all is said and done?
Most of the work in the world that *interests* me most (high energy physics
and astronomy and like that) is parasitic on low and high-level
life-support toil. Yes, it has some spin-offs that feed back into
productivity and ultimately into those paradigm-jumpers that will push us
into the singularity, but meanwhile it looks as if many of the smart people
in the world have set it up so the less smart provide their sustenance
while they enjoy the exercise of their wits. Perhaps I digress.
My question is, what economic functions must be performed in those
skyscrapers when and if we have a combination of positional synthesisers
and human-level AI (not necessarily conscious, but the kind of thing that
happens due to Moore's curve, by general consensus in 20-40 years.)
>>With AI agents
>>taking over most of the scut-work of filing and organizing
>Assuming advanced AI is very different from just assuming early nanotech.
But hang on, you've snipped my key linking statement, where I claimed:
>But of course this assumes bizarrely that *only* replicative nanotech
>happens in the future. Moore's Law hasn't shut down, the computers are
>getting better all the time, and nano is feeding into that curve with
>smaller and faster computers built at molecular scales
So I assume any disagreement involves timelines for these innovations.
Which is where we came in.
I'd lwelcome opinions of how long it's likely to take to go from early
assemblers to smart computers using nano construction and operating
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:17 MDT