Should artificial intelligence be allowed to evolve
- Thread starter Thunderrr-mental
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
On 60 minutes special on AI one of the interviews said that AI is like a sewing machine, when the sewing machine came out people thought they would lose jobs but that is not what happened. His point was that it would be the same with AI. I feel that is a very misleading analogy, either he knows that and is being intentionally misleading or else he doesn't want to admit the truth and so is obfuscating.
When the sewing machine came out you could make 25 shirts a day on a sewing machine (on average). Prior to that it probably took 3-4 days to make a shirt. So the ratio is close to 75:1, maybe even as high as 100:1. But the same is true of the machines that make cloth from cotton and other fibers. The same is also true of the truck, train or cargo ship that transports the shirts to market. So even though you only needed 1 person to do what it used to take 75 people to do, the result was that shirts became much cheaper, so much so that everyone bought them and bought many of them. That meant you needed more salesmen, more truck drivers, etc. All of those inventions like a sewing machine made products cheaper, but they didn't eliminate the need for a skilled craftsman and in fact in many cases you needed more skills. So it created more jobs, high skilled and high wage jobs, and increased the standard of living for everyone. But the major reason for this is we kept expanding into new markets. You find developing nations where the people don't have many shirts, now they can buy more shirts. So you have growth and expansion. The basic principle was to take an existing tool (a needle and thread) and super charge it (sewing machine).
But that is not the basic principle of AI. As it is right now AI needs an operator, that is "true". But let's look carefully at that. Suppose I am a tax preparer. I have a small office with a secretary, three accountants and the owner of the firm who is a CPA. But now with AI my customer goes on line and is asked questions by the AI, they answer those questions, provide necessary forms or receipts, and it prepares the tax return. It works much faster, so that in an hour you could start and finish the entire process. Maybe 80% of the returns are standard, the owner might only initial the final copy. The other 20% are flagged because they are more involved. But the issue is not with the whole return it is with one or two of the decisions the AI made which the CPA needs to look at and approve. So the amount of work the CPA would have to do on these 20% is probably only 10% of what it would be if he had done these returns. That means the CPA is really only doing about 10% or less of the work involved. Before when he had four other people working for him he might have been doing 30% of the work. So his work load is not a third of what it was and he doesn't need the four other people. Therefore he can charge less for this work, but what the AI is doing is replacing 80% of the workforce. If tax returns are now cheaper to get someone to prepare will more people pay to have them done? No. So you will see this job market shrink. The same can be shown for lawyers, doctors, engineers, stock brokers, programmers, etc.
Every single job will be impacted. Think of a mechanic. You bring your car in because a sensor went off saying there was a problem. They plug in the computer, it tells them the offending part, they buy a new part, pull out the old one and plug in the new one. The mechanic is no longer this highly skilled job of diagnosing the problem and fixing it. Now you simply ask the computer what part to buy, order it, plug it in, and that is that. One mechanic can do the job of 5 mechanics.
Think about a cashier. At Walmart I see an area with 20 self checkout cash registers being supervised by two people. They are replacing 90% of their cashiers and with online orders you replace 100%.
There is no "new" job being created. No "new" market for cashiers or mechanics.
Also as layoffs hit 80% of the job market they will not be "buying" more shirts. Things will get cheaper and faster, but with every layoff there will be fewer and fewer customers. AI will not be going to the grocery store, it won't be buying a shirt, or a car or a house or anything else. With each person AI replaces it will be one less consumer in the economy.
AI replaces workers, that is what it does. Tell it the job to do, and it can do it. If it can do it faster, cheaper, better than a human then it replaces humans. Also as it does its job it will be learning at an exponential rate. So today it does 80%, next year it does 90% and the year after that it does 95%.
When the sewing machine came out you could make 25 shirts a day on a sewing machine (on average). Prior to that it probably took 3-4 days to make a shirt. So the ratio is close to 75:1, maybe even as high as 100:1. But the same is true of the machines that make cloth from cotton and other fibers. The same is also true of the truck, train or cargo ship that transports the shirts to market. So even though you only needed 1 person to do what it used to take 75 people to do, the result was that shirts became much cheaper, so much so that everyone bought them and bought many of them. That meant you needed more salesmen, more truck drivers, etc. All of those inventions like a sewing machine made products cheaper, but they didn't eliminate the need for a skilled craftsman and in fact in many cases you needed more skills. So it created more jobs, high skilled and high wage jobs, and increased the standard of living for everyone. But the major reason for this is we kept expanding into new markets. You find developing nations where the people don't have many shirts, now they can buy more shirts. So you have growth and expansion. The basic principle was to take an existing tool (a needle and thread) and super charge it (sewing machine).
But that is not the basic principle of AI. As it is right now AI needs an operator, that is "true". But let's look carefully at that. Suppose I am a tax preparer. I have a small office with a secretary, three accountants and the owner of the firm who is a CPA. But now with AI my customer goes on line and is asked questions by the AI, they answer those questions, provide necessary forms or receipts, and it prepares the tax return. It works much faster, so that in an hour you could start and finish the entire process. Maybe 80% of the returns are standard, the owner might only initial the final copy. The other 20% are flagged because they are more involved. But the issue is not with the whole return it is with one or two of the decisions the AI made which the CPA needs to look at and approve. So the amount of work the CPA would have to do on these 20% is probably only 10% of what it would be if he had done these returns. That means the CPA is really only doing about 10% or less of the work involved. Before when he had four other people working for him he might have been doing 30% of the work. So his work load is not a third of what it was and he doesn't need the four other people. Therefore he can charge less for this work, but what the AI is doing is replacing 80% of the workforce. If tax returns are now cheaper to get someone to prepare will more people pay to have them done? No. So you will see this job market shrink. The same can be shown for lawyers, doctors, engineers, stock brokers, programmers, etc.
Every single job will be impacted. Think of a mechanic. You bring your car in because a sensor went off saying there was a problem. They plug in the computer, it tells them the offending part, they buy a new part, pull out the old one and plug in the new one. The mechanic is no longer this highly skilled job of diagnosing the problem and fixing it. Now you simply ask the computer what part to buy, order it, plug it in, and that is that. One mechanic can do the job of 5 mechanics.
Think about a cashier. At Walmart I see an area with 20 self checkout cash registers being supervised by two people. They are replacing 90% of their cashiers and with online orders you replace 100%.
There is no "new" job being created. No "new" market for cashiers or mechanics.
Also as layoffs hit 80% of the job market they will not be "buying" more shirts. Things will get cheaper and faster, but with every layoff there will be fewer and fewer customers. AI will not be going to the grocery store, it won't be buying a shirt, or a car or a house or anything else. With each person AI replaces it will be one less consumer in the economy.
AI replaces workers, that is what it does. Tell it the job to do, and it can do it. If it can do it faster, cheaper, better than a human then it replaces humans. Also as it does its job it will be learning at an exponential rate. So today it does 80%, next year it does 90% and the year after that it does 95%.
This is another massive Industry AI could dominate
Plus taxis
Plus any kind of delivery or transport
Plus The information technology field IT
Plus it's already dominating how we communicate or how we pay our bills to utility providers
Plus taxis
Plus any kind of delivery or transport
Plus The information technology field IT
Plus it's already dominating how we communicate or how we pay our bills to utility providers
thanks, Eli. if i sound like a dummy, it's only because i am one.
i know you're in hospitals most every day, but i sedulously avoid them, lol. used to have a friend who was a surgeon, but he retired and moved away, so i appreciate your patience with my questions i have no answer for.
do you think we can say it's through man's knowledge? since true wisdom only comes from God?
thanks, Eli. if i sound like a dummy, it's only because i am one.
i know you're in hospitals most every day, but i sedulously avoid them, lol. used to have a friend who was a surgeon, but he retired and moved away, so i appreciate your patience with my questions i have no answer for.
First of all may you always be away from hospitals and may God keep you healthy and safe forever.
We're all dummies, i just know more about computers which i've been dealing with for 25 years and a bit about hospitals since they need high end computers in there always.
For a lot of other things, i have to ask questions too.
Of course we can say that and that's the correct way of saying it, but i was just saying that to the new guy who came in at 120mph, high beams on, no breaks, crashes into the supermarket, comes out and says "you're all going to Hell".
Average Westboro Protestant, those guys are always special and give Christianity a great name everywhere they go.
I do like them, even if I go to the person to get checked out the lines are much shorter because of them. I can see why any business owner would love these things, they don't talk back, they work 24/7, don't smoke, don't get pregnant. What is not to love.
yes well I would like to think that will always be the case, but one of the other concerns in the discussion is if the robot performs all medical operations successfully, would there be any need for Doctors guiding the robot ,
Or could.it go that way, where by expensive wages for doctors and operations are made redundant because miss diagnosis also becomes a distant reality
It's impossible for the robot to do a human surgery all by itself right now.
Just like it's impossible for a robot to build a car by itself in Japan or USA or anywhere else.
They don't have to be perfect, as long as you can prove statistically that they are safer than the average doctor and can prove it in court no one would be able to sue the hospital or administrators for using robots. Now obviously there will be some maintenance, but that is certainly part of the equation for ROI.
Oh, well that is the atomic bomb question. I wish it never happens, Elon Musk is against it too. People or more accurately, politicians should delay it or make sure it never happens. Because once you create something, you can't put it back in the box.
So if a truly sentient program exists in some point in the future which it's self-aware, it may see us as a threat and decides to wage war on us.
Robots are used to perform various tasks, from welding and painting to assembly and material handling.
So they can eliminate welders, painters, assemblers and the people who handled the material. They don't design cars, sell them, market them, buy the parts needed, or plan for the future. For that you need AI.
Nor did they build the factory, for that you need 3d printer.
Nor do they deliver the parts or the cars, for that you need self driving vehicles.
No, I am congratulating the ingenuity as we watch this new beast system rise unlike any previous empire. I am one of only 3 people on this thread who said yes to the question should we let this evolve. I would have preferred the choice "there is nothing we can do to stop it from evolving" but that wasn't there, so the closest I could find was "yes".
Now I get that the powers that be would be alarmed that 6 people said no. Are these revolutionaries? Anarchists? But no worries, all they need to do is fully surveil your phone, and your social media, and implement the mark of the beast to completely surveil and control everything you buy and sell. But all these things they are doing or are rolling out, so they know that.
So why should anyone be fearful? Jesus and the apostles all told us this was exactly where we were headed. What you are looking at is Satan's last, best counterfeit to the kingdom of the heavens.
Many people get very upset with the NT because the prophecies state that the number who die will be very great. But that is because they are "useless eaters". Not the Bible that says that, they themselves say that, this is not my judgement, it is theirs. The one job that AI doesn't do is tell the machine what it wants. In the beginning God spoke and it was so. You have to tell it what car to make, what color, where to build the factory, they want to be god and this is the closest they can come. I find it fascinating, and at the same time it turns me to the Lord Jesus and reminds me I need my treasure in heaven because all this stuff is going to burn.
The concerns are major pandemics becoming more frequent is a reason for cyBorg doctors to act on there own authority