AI has been hailed as the next industrial revolution: Artificial Intelligence: Next Industrial Revolution? - YouTube
1 Like
I think the video made some good points, and some I can’t do the mental gymnastics to agree with: to me human intelligence isn’t really something that’s quantifiable.
If you’re of the “AI are humans” mindset, you’re just separating humans from humans honestly. To me humans wont become the Borge. We’re already the Borge, and the emergence of AI is just really subtle.
Moreover, I think, like other industrial revolutions, the revolution will be not evenly distributed. (Even if I disagree with other things by the inventor of the phrase "the future is already here, it’s just not evenly distributed.)
Hello,
Thank you for your reply. I myself believe that where we are at Salt lake city, Utah are not getting involved as much as we should. Can it be because the person to approve adding such an enterprise could end up costing us more? I doubt it. I worked for a company for 10 years and graduated in Manufacturing Engineering and we had a course dedicated in evaluating the cost effectiveness of using this innovations. We more than double production as well as quality. I currently work for a company that is slowly adding machines and much less AI automation. I feel like I walked through a time warped anomaly and can’t get out of it. It is very horrifying to know that I am actually doing most of these processes manually but to my personal ego I actually feel satisfied to know that I have acquired an almost inhuman skill of doing these processes as if I were a robot. We were told that we produced 10 million and are projected to double but that is not going to happen without automation. Most of us are already suffering lack of sleep, digestive problems and just getting sick very often. Which is why I am perusing this website for ideas in implementing AI automation of some kind since we are dealing with large quantities.
1 Like
I’ve been doing software development and systems work for a long time, first job was in the late 70s, and I’m sure there is much parallel in our experience. Even in the AI development space, I get the idea that lots of very smart people are working very hard with limited financial resources such that they can’t even always apply their work to their own work. Unless it is paid for by someone who will own the work.
I’m a strong AI skeptic, but it doesn’t matter if robots become sentient and the richest corporations are run by a robot faction that is enslaving humans and robots alike. We have to start doing more stuff on purpose rather than because it is more profitable.
See things like this:
https://encode.org/
And the related brand/meme Holacracy.
1 Like
Profit does seem to ruin organizations with even the best of intentions sometimes.
I work largely for free because I worry what would happen if I let the wrong people donate to my cause. I mean even with say a reader funded approach, I may have to put a cap on how much can be donated at any given point, and click auto-reject on the really really big donations.
And I’m a huge proponent of creative-commons.
It is built into most corporate constitutions. The fiduciary responsibility of the officers to to shareholder’s profits. Holarchy based orgs (and I’m sure others as well) explicitly make leaders responsible to a “purpose” the organization decides on and updates through governance process.
1 Like
Ahah! So it’s not a worker-cooperative then? I mean as long as the current conception of work remains relevant. (In twenty years, honestly who knows?)
And I just wrote off one where she acted really weirdly to me wanting to develop robots, certainly claimed to be for worker rights, but it was a … honestly I’m not even sure what you’d call it. There’s this ultra state-run thing, there is the corporate run thing, there is my thought process (neither state or corporate), and then you have this whole other mindset that’s totally alien.
Sense I have no nice words about it, I wont say anything.
Basically it’s an entirely different frame of reference it seems like.
I see it as something completely different. It is designed to both be able to have roles with people who are responsible for key assets. If your organization is designed to be “a commons”, the assets will be things that are shared by user/producers in the network. In this type of organization, you might expect there to be open voting systems to choose occupants for key roles. On the other hand, if you are Zappos (a company that uses this form), you can make sure the central roles are filled in based on the “interests of the stockholders”, but nothing prevents them from opening that process up to more voices either.
1 Like