Robert J. Bradbury, <bradbury@aeiveos.com>, writes:
> IMO, far more concerning
> than overpopulation would be the development of robotics or
> sub-AI that eliminates the needs for employing a large fraction
> of the population. If we assume, for the moment, that most
> of the people on this list fall into the "above average" segment
> of the population (in intelligence, education, awareness, etc.),
> doesn't that give you pause to ask, just what does the "below average"
> segment of the population do? And what will happen when they can
> be replaced by a reliable 24-hour-a-day robot/AI?
It seems to me that people above average in intelligence are in far more
danger of being replaced than below average. To replace a knowledge
worker requires only a relatively smart AI. To replace a janitor
requires not only an AI, it requires a robot with sensors, motors,
structural components, mechanical flexibility and versatility, and it's
gotta be CHEAP.
Once you have an AI travel agent, say, you can replace all travel agents
just by copying bits. But an AI janitor requires you to build a new
clanking machine for each guy you want to replace. It's a much more
expensive proposition.
And there is a good chance that most of the skills we humans associate
with intelligence, like designing ICs or diagnosing illness, are actually
easier to do than the things we think are trivial, like walking and
picking up trashcans and emptying them out.
I would not be too smug about being irreplaceable just because we think
we are "above average". Picture a future where smart AIs do all the
intellectual work far less expensively than people could, while humans
are the drones doing the physical labor, flesh and blood being too cheap
to be worth replacing with metal.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:22 MDT