From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Sun Aug 31 2003 - 21:00:06 MDT
The major problem with this article is that where any actual economic
thinking is actually going on (as opposed to knee-jerk anti-progress,
anti-technology, pro-forced-wealth-redistribution thinking that permeates
this thing), it's all Keynesian. Especially that giving money away business;
shades of setting the people to work digging holes and filling them again
because that makes everything better if you believe Keynesian economic
theories. (Bah). That's not even to start on the candlemaker fallacy part;
apparently we must stop progress because some industries will suffer. Narry
a mention of the job creation in new industries, just the same old zero-sum
protectionist nonsense based on the assumption that people are owed security
and a livelihood with no effort on their part, funded by the wealthy via
forced redistribution of wealth. Even the anti-capitalist, anti-free-market
arguments in this thing are tired and by the numbers, pushing the effects of
government intervention (no5t labeled as such, of course) in trade and
markets as reasons for more government intervention. It's sad, sad, sad. And
stupid. Massively, massively stupid.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Robert J. Bradbury
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 5:18 PM
> To: Extropy List
> Subject: Robots r Us
>
>
>
> Oh boy, you folks are going to have a field day with this.
>
> Marshall Brain has written an article called "Robotic Freedom":
> http://www.marshallbrain.com/robotic-freedom.htm
>
> It outlines the problems that modern economies will have as
> robots start to significantly displace individuals in the
> work force. (Mind you I don't completely agree with his
> predictions/time-frame.) But this goes back to points that
> Moravec has made in his books, e.g. "How does the economy
> function when robots do most of the work?".
>
> The interesting suggestion that Brain makes is that the
> government should literally give money away.
>
> So, question -- does or does not the knowledge of several
> lawyers on the list require "real" artificial intelligence
> or could their arguments be presented by a robot with
> a "simple" logical argument component with a very large
> memory? (E.g. essentially a legal "expert system".)
> As background, I'll simply point out that expert systems
> that diagnose certain diseases have been built (and IMO
> would probably do a much better job than several physicians
> I've encountered over the last year). This relates to the
> question of precisely *when* do many of the service jobs
> go to the robots in addition to the physical labor jobs.
>
> (To the lawyers -- no offense -- I'm just trying to fuel
> the debate of "what are robots" and "what are AIs" and how
> trends may dictate how people should prepare for the future.)
>
> Robert
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Aug 31 2003 - 21:08:56 MDT