Technological unemployment: Difference between revisions

Technological unemployment (view source)

Revision as of 14:01, 30 August 2020

32 bytes removed , 30 August 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,890

edits

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 The history of the world so far: we solve old problems, usually by accident. Old problem goes away and in its place we find a range up untapped, hitherto unimagined, ''possibilities''. And some ''new'' problems.
-Societies are [[complex system]]s. Machines aren’t awfully good at imagining unforeseeable possibilities, and problems, presented by complex systems, let alone exploiting, or solving, them. Just ask {{author|Charles Perrow}}: this is the basic learning of [[complexity]] theory.  And no, being good at [[Go]] or [[Chess]] doesn’t falsify that observation.<ref>Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls this the “ludic fallacy”. {{google2|Ludic|Fallacy}}. Co,plexity theorists point at that games — complete [[Hermeneutical boundaries|hermeneutic]] systems — can be [[complicated]], but they ''aren’t'' [[complex]].</ref> Machines are good at doing what someone has already figured out needs to be done, now, only ''faster''. They require configuration, programming and implementation. Machines are [[A faster horse - technology article|faster horses]]. They won’t imagine an alternative future for you. Not even clever, [[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]], seemingly [[magic|magical machines]].
+Societies are [[complex system]]s. Machines aren’t awfully good at imagining unforeseeable possibilities, and problems, presented by complex systems, let alone exploiting, or solving, them. Just ask {{author|Charles Perrow}}: this is the basic learning of [[complexity]] theory.  And no, being good at [[Go]] or [[Chess]] doesn’t falsify that observation.<ref>Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls this the “ludic fallacy”. {{google2|Ludic|Fallacy}}. Complexity theorists point out that games — complete logical systems — can be [[complicated]], but they ''aren’t'' [[complex]].</ref> Machines are good at doing what someone has already figured out needs to be done, now, only ''faster''. They require configuration, programming and implementation. Machines are [[A faster horse - technology article|faster horses]]. They won’t imagine an alternative future for you. Not even clever, [[Artificial intelligence|artificially intelligent]], seemingly [[magic|magical machines]].
 We are in the middle of a Cambrian explosion of innovations. The one thing we can be assured won’t work right in the near, or far, future are [[A faster horse - technology article|faster horses]].