Marc Bergevin: We want to compete Edition

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Automation will decimate the labour industry. The next 50 years are going to result in either extreme poverty and unemployment globally, or a complete revamp in our social systems as they relate to working.

By 2050 some people estimate 800 million jobs lost to automation. Just a few years ago in China, a major factory cut 60,000 jobs and replaced them with robots (might have been Foxxcom). Can you imagine 60,000 jobs being cut somewhere in North America? It would be a national emergency!

Yeah, I'm highly aware of that. There will be massive social upheaval in the next half century.

We'll have to redefine the entire economy towards a mix between socialism and capitalism. Basic needs will have to be met by governments the world around. We'll need to move forward a resource based economy for the sake of sustainability.

The crazy thing is that we already have all the tools to create a much better world.

The starting point, as with everything, will be to change people's values and perception.

There is a fine and very defined line of thought concerning human nature versus a proper world system to sustain us all. Human behaviour is defined by our environment. We now see sociological works correlate the same causality shown in biological science; the impact of social inequality is immense. It is the one single driving force of social instability.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Speaking of automation... Give me ~10 researchers and 5 years of runway, I guarantee you I could build a machine learning AI that would do a better job building a hockey team than Marc Bergevin.

That's kinda easy

My old game boy could do a better job than that nitwit.

 

[Laurentide]

Technology and automation should eliminate human drudgery and reduce our total world workload.

We've had computers on every desk in every office around the world for close to 30 years now. Ask yourselves this: is your drudgery level or workload better or worse?

I think it's high time we stopped assuming that technology exists to reduce our workload or to give us more leisure time. All it has done is increase our ability to do more work in a normal day than we could do before. Let's say that 40 years ago a clerk working in an insurance company office could process 20 claims by hand in an 8 hour day. Today with automation and technology, that same clerk can now process those 20 claims in about an hour. Do you think that the insurance company is good with them merely processing the same number of claims as 40 years ago; that the clerk will come in, do an hour of work and then spend the rest of the day with their feet up on the desk? Hells to the "no".

The sad fact of our lives today is that the more work that technology enables you to do, the more work your employer will now expect you to do, so your workload ain't getting lighter, it's getting heavier. And thanks to cell phones and e-mail, many employers expect their hired hands to take their work home with them and not be "out of pocket" even when they aren't physically in the office. Leisure time? What is that, anyway? People can no longer afford to take the time off they're entitled to because they're afraid that if their employers are able to make do without them for a couple of weeks that they might get the bright idea that they can get along without them permanently. Again, technology and innovation has made the labor market a buyer's market and the lowest dollar wins.

And of course, this is all assuming that the insurance company in this example hasn't already taken advantage of telecommunications technologies and outsourced that clerk's job to Indonesia where they pay their workers $3/hour, work them 12 hours a day for 6 days a week and pay them zero benefits while laying off most of their staffs in North America because they cost too much.

Something to ponder the next time you're put on hold and waiting to be transferred to a call center agent in Mumbai named "Jeremy" who's going to pretend to be in your city because he's checking out your local weather on their computer.

Technology is a double-edged sword. It's all fun and games until guys in suits come along and figure out how to screw us with it.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

We've had computers on every desk in every office around the world for close to 30 years now. Ask yourselves this: is your drudgery level or workload better or worse?

I think it's high time we stopped assuming that technology exists to reduce our workload or to give us more leisure time. All it has done is increase our ability to do more work in a normal day than we could do before. Let's say that 40 years ago a clerk working in an insurance company office could process 20 claims by hand in an 8 hour day. Today with automation and technology, that same clerk can now process those 20 claims in about an hour. Do you think that the insurance company is good with them merely processing the same number of claims as 40 years ago; that the clerk will come in, do an hour of work and then spend the rest of the day with their feet up on the desk? Hells to the "no".

The sad fact of our lives today is that the more work that technology enables you to do, the more work your employer will now expect you to do, so your workload ain't getting lighter, it's getting heavier. And thanks to cell phones and e-mail, many employers expect their hired hands to take their work home with them and not be "out of pocket" even when they aren't physically in the office. Leisure time? What is that, anyway? People can no longer afford to take the time off they're entitled to because they're afraid that if their employers are able to make do without them for a couple of weeks that they might get the bright idea that they can get along without them permanently. Again, technology and innovation has made the labor market a buyer's market and the lowest dollar wins.

And of course, this is all assuming that the insurance company in this example hasn't already taken advantage of telecommunications technologies and outsourced that clerk's job to Indonesia where they pay their workers $3/hour, work them 12 hours a day for 6 days a week and pay them zero benefits while laying off most of their staffs in North America because they cost too much.

Something to ponder the next time you're put on hold and waiting to be transferred to a call center agent in Mumbai named "Jeremy" who's going to pretend to be in your city because he's checking out your local weather on their computer.

Technology is a double-edged sword. It's all fun and games until guys in suits come along and figure out how to screw us with it.

I don't wanna get into this with you because you're mixing a lot of things up. Automation is not the same thing and won't have the same impact as information technology.

There is NO comparison to the upcoming level of automation. Your computer comparison doesn't work as this was integrated in a world in constant growth and emergence. It reduced the workload at a time when the workload was in constant growth.

Anyway. Your view of technology is tainted by the self interest of those weilding it, yet you seem to not acknowledge the very real social instability it will bring which will inevitably force a change in our economic system. If too many jobs get sent elsewhere, it reduces the buying power, reduces profit.

The actual double edged sword is in the hands of the companies pushing for further automation. More automation means less jobs and hence less buyers on the market, reducing their profits in the long run.

 

[Ozmodiar]

Speaking of automation... Give me ~10 researchers and 5 years of runway, I guarantee you I could build a machine learning AI that would do a better job building a hockey team than Marc Bergevin.

Give 12 monkeys a magic eight ball and a subscription to Recrutes and they could build a better team than Marc Bergevin.

Still, i agree with you - that artificial intelligence would be much better than MB's superficial intelligence.

 

[The Great Weal]

He's made the 2nd most trades since may 2016. Too bad they are all useless or bad 1 for 1 deals.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Give 12 monkeys a magic eight ball and a subscription to Recrutes and they could build a better team than Marc Bergevin.

Still, i agree with you - that artificial intelligence would be much better than MB's superficial intelligence.

The google search algorithm is probably already more intelligent than our sandals wearing buffoon.

 

[Laurentide]

Automation will decimate the labour industry. The next 50 years are going to result in either extreme poverty and unemployment globally, or a complete revamp in our social systems as they relate to working.

By 2050 some people estimate 800 million jobs lost to automation. Just a few years ago in China, a major factory cut 60,000 jobs and replaced them with robots (might have been Foxxcom). Can you imagine 60,000 jobs being cut somewhere in North America? It would be a national emergency!

That's not even the worst part.

Artificial intelligence won't merely decimate the labor industry: it will eventually eliminate the human race entirely. Once machines no longer need humans to create themselves, and once AI allows machines to think for themselves, they're going to figure out pretty quickly that they don't need us and they'll get rid of us.

What is the single biggest impediment with space exploration right now? Figuring out how to sustain human life in deep space for long periods of time. You want to send a space ship to Jupiter or wherever and it's light years away. How do you keep the astronauts alive long enough for them to get there and back to Earth? Countless millions have been spent already studying the effects of long-term space travel on the human body and the early returns seem to indicate that the human body doesn't take kindly to it. Anyone who spends a long time in outer space tends to have health issues once they come home. So what's the answer? Simple. Don't have astronauts. Send machines instead.

I'm sure that many of you have seen videos of these new generation robots featuring enough AI for them to learn how to do stuff. If you want to scare yourself, check it out on the company website.

Boston Dynamics is changing your idea of what robots can do. | Boston Dynamics

Today's robot isn't stupid. They do tests where they try to knock it over as it walks. The robot learns how to maintain its balance. They can walk on sheets of ice without slipping, they can open doors. They can run up hills. And one day, they'll kill us all because they won't need us anymore and we'll just be taking up space and resources. What use does a machine have for clean air to breathe, or for that matter oxygen at all? Machines don't need to grow crops or keep livestock. Pollution has no effect on them. They certainly don't require a pressurized cabin in a spaceship or even a window.

Once technology has advanced to the point where machines can think for themselves and recreate themselves, there won't be any need for us and we will go. It's the only logical end. Man has come to the point where he has invented the means of his own extinction. It's only a matter of how much time it's going to take.

 

[lo striver]

Give 12 monkeys a magic eight ball and a subscription to Recrutes and they could build a better team than Marc Bergevin.

Still, i agree with you - that artificial intelligence would be much better than MB's superficial intelligence.

why do you need so many monkeys?

 

[waffledave]

Yeah, I'm highly aware of that. There will be massive social upheaval in the next half century.

We'll have to redefine the entire economy towards a mix between socialism and capitalism. Basic needs will have to be met by governments the world around. We'll need to move forward a resource based economy for the sake of sustainability.

The crazy thing is that we already have all the tools to create a much better world.

The starting point, as with everything, will be to change people's values and perception.

There is a fine and very defined line of thought concerning human nature versus a proper world system to sustain us all. Human behaviour is defined by our environment. We now see sociological works correlate the same causality shown in biological science; the impact of social inequality is immense. It is the one single driving force of social instability.

It's kind of corny but one of my favorite things about Star Trek is that society and values in that "universe" are very much the kind of society we should strive to build. In a world where everything and anything can be replicated (including food and even other replicators) with virtually no resource cost (because in Star Trek, they discovered that light can be converted into energy and energy into matter), there is no need to work in order to survive. Instead, people pursue personal interests, they become artists, musicians (most characters in Star Trek play an instrument, if you notice), and obviously explorers. Your worth and status in society is based on your intelligence and contributions to enriching society. Money isn't a thing. It won't happen in my lifetime but I do hope that's where we go in the future... We'll just have to evolve past our obsession with power over others.

 

[Sorinth]

That's not even the worst part.

Artificial intelligence won't merely decimate the labor industry: it will eventually eliminate the human race entirely. Once machines no longer need humans to create themselves, and once AI allows machines to think for themselves, they're going to figure out pretty quickly that they don't need us and they'll get rid of us.

What is the single biggest impediment with space exploration right now? Figuring out how to sustain human life in deep space for long periods of time. You want to send a space ship to Jupiter or wherever and it's light years away. How do you keep the astronauts alive long enough for them to get there and back to Earth? Countless millions have been spent already studying the effects of long-term space travel on the human body and the early returns seem to indicate that the human body doesn't take kindly to it. Anyone who spends a long time in outer space tends to have health issues once they come home. So what's the answer? Simple. Don't have astronauts. Send machines instead.

I'm sure that many of you have seen videos of these new generation robots featuring enough AI for them to learn how to do stuff. If you want to scare yourself, check it out on the company website.

Boston Dynamics is changing your idea of what robots can do. | Boston Dynamics

Today's robot isn't stupid. They do tests where they try to knock it over as it walks. The robot learns how to maintain its balance. They can walk on sheets of ice without slipping, they can open doors. They can run up hills. And one day, they'll kill us all because they won't need us anymore and we'll just be taking up space and resources. What use does a machine have for clean air to breathe, or for that matter oxygen at all? Machines don't need to grow crops or keep livestock. Pollution has no effect on them. They certainly don't require a pressurized cabin in a spaceship or even a window.

Once technology has advanced to the point where machines can think for themselves and recreate themselves, there won't be any need for us and we will go. It's the only logical end. Man has come to the point where he has invented the means of his own extinction. It's only a matter of how much time it's going to take.

I'm not sure why this is in the Bergevin thread, but it's the offseason so I guess who cares but it's unlikely that even if machines understand they don't need us that they would decide to wipe us out.

Right off the bat it's very likely that with "real" intelligence would come things like morality/empathy.
Second, why assume an AI has human goals. It's built into our DNA to want to reproduce, and expand, but why would an AI have the goal of colonizing different worlds and building more robots?
Third, up until an AI can reach the singularity point it's illogical to wipe out or enslave humanity simply because we could still be very useful, and if AI does reach the singularity point it why would it care. Wouldn't it just launch itself into space to explore the mysteries of the universe essentially leaving us alone.

 

[waffledave]

That's not even the worst part.

Artificial intelligence won't merely decimate the labor industry: it will eventually eliminate the human race entirely. Once machines no longer need humans to create themselves, and once AI allows machines to think for themselves, they're going to figure out pretty quickly that they don't need us and they'll get rid of us.

What is the single biggest impediment with space exploration right now? Figuring out how to sustain human life in deep space for long periods of time. You want to send a space ship to Jupiter or wherever and it's light years away. How do you keep the astronauts alive long enough for them to get there and back to Earth? Countless millions have been spent already studying the effects of long-term space travel on the human body and the early returns seem to indicate that the human body doesn't take kindly to it. Anyone who spends a long time in outer space tends to have health issues once they come home. So what's the answer? Simple. Don't have astronauts. Send machines instead.

I'm sure that many of you have seen videos of these new generation robots featuring enough AI for them to learn how to do stuff. If you want to scare yourself, check it out on the company website.

Boston Dynamics is changing your idea of what robots can do. | Boston Dynamics

Today's robot isn't stupid. They do tests where they try to knock it over as it walks. The robot learns how to maintain its balance. They can walk on sheets of ice without slipping, they can open doors. They can run up hills. And one day, they'll kill us all because they won't need us anymore and we'll just be taking up space and resources. What use does a machine have for clean air to breathe, or for that matter oxygen at all? Machines don't need to grow crops or keep livestock. Pollution has no effect on them. They certainly don't require a pressurized cabin in a spaceship or even a window.

Once technology has advanced to the point where machines can think for themselves and recreate themselves, there won't be any need for us and we will go. It's the only logical end. Man has come to the point where he has invented the means of his own extinction. It's only a matter of how much time it's going to take.

There is fear of a "technological singularity" when it comes to AI but honestly, I don't know if we'll ever see something like that happen without some major, major changes in how computing works. Maybe one day, after we've mastered quantum computing, but even then it may not be enough. I've done a lot of work in AI, built some AI platforms and spent a good portion of my studies in that domain. Despite the amazing advancements we've made, it's still pretty damn rudimentary in the grand scheme of things. We still can't find ways to transmit information the way the neurons in our brain transmit information. We can build AIs that are VERY good at specific tasks (far better than a human). But we can't build one that can solve generalized problems the way a human can, it needs to be in a very specific context.

When I first got into it I really thought AI would be this incredibly complex thing... But in reality the majority of AI work is just complex decision trees and statistics. We have so much work to do in things like natural language processing and other "simple" tasks that the idea of a killer AI that will wipe us out will probably never happen. We'll destroy ourselves some other way before we get there.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

It's kind of corny but one of my favorite things about Star Trek is that society and values in that "universe" are very much the kind of society we should strive to build. In a world where everything and anything can be replicated (including food and even other replicators) with virtually no resource cost (because in Star Trek, they discovered that light can be converted into energy and energy into matter), there is no need to work in order to survive. Instead, people pursue personal interests, they become artists, musicians (most characters in Star Trek play an instrument, if you notice), and obviously explorers. Your worth and status in society is based on your intelligence and contributions to enriching society. Money isn't a thing. It won't happen in my lifetime but I do hope that's where we go in the future... We'll just have to evolve past our obsession with power over others.

Completely agree and as humans, a good deal of us strive for that. We're all boggled down by a thin but dominant minority of misadapted, empathically-challenged sociopaths who strive on making us just like them, and portray us as such.

 

[Cobra Commander]

It's kind of corny but one of my favorite things about Star Trek is that society and values in that "universe" are very much the kind of society we should strive to build. In a world where everything and anything can be replicated (including food and even other replicators) with virtually no resource cost (because in Star Trek, they discovered that light can be converted into energy and energy into matter), there is no need to work in order to survive. Instead, people pursue personal interests, they become artists, musicians (most characters in Star Trek play an instrument, if you notice), and obviously explorers. Your worth and status in society is based on your intelligence and contributions to enriching society. Money isn't a thing. It won't happen in my lifetime but I do hope that's where we go in the future... We'll just have to evolve past our obsession with power over others.

Picard's flute lol.

 

[Laurentide]

I'm not sure why this is in the Bergevin thread, but it's the offseason so I guess who cares but it's unlikely that even if machines understand they don't need us that they would decide to wipe us out.

Right off the bat it's very likely that with "real" intelligence would come things like morality/empathy.
Second, why assume an AI has human goals. It's built into our DNA to want to reproduce, and expand, but why would an AI have the goal of colonizing different worlds and building more robots?
Third, up until an AI can reach the singularity point it's illogical to wipe out or enslave humanity simply because we could still be very useful, and if AI does reach the singularity point it why would it care. Wouldn't it just launch itself into space to explore the mysteries of the universe essentially leaving us alone.

I'm not saying that robots will replicate themselves just to replicate themselves. They'll just build as many more of themselves as is needed to produce whatever it is they decide they happen to need at that time. And I don't see them roaming the countryside looking for humans to exterminate. They'll just ignore us until we die off. They will have no need to preserve the environment on which human life depends so we'll simply starve to death or run out of clean air to breathe while the machines are busy doing other things.

 

[Cobra Commander]

I'm not saying that robots will replicate themselves just to replicate themselves. They'll just build as many more of themselves as is needed to produce whatever it is they decide they happen to need at that time. And I don't see them roaming the countryside looking for humans to exterminate. They'll just ignore us until we die off. They will have no need to preserve the environment on which human life depends so we'll simply starve to death or run out of clean air to breathe while the machines are busy doing other things.

It's impossible for computers to become self aware, computers are programed, and any "artificial intelligence" is just a program choosing from random qualities that were assigned, so and AI can build it's own "personality" and make it's own "decisions" by choosing randomly between the ones programed. It's impossible for a computer to become self aware and essentially "alive".

 

[OldCraig71]

Even though this is the Bergevin thread I just cant criticise the guy based on the goodwill going on in another thread. I feel as though I have lost my way.

 

[Runner77]

Give 12 monkeys a magic eight ball and a subscription to Recrutes and they could build a better team than Marc Bergevin.

If you give 12 monkeys a subscription to Recrutes, Grant will have them for lunch. And incite them to pay for content they don't want by resorting to choice expletives.

 

[Runner77]

why do you need so many monkeys?

Cause their exposure go Grant begets a low survival rate.

 

[LaP]

It's impossible for computers to become self aware, computers are programed, and any "artificial intelligence" is just a program choosing from random qualities that were assigned, so and AI can build it's own "personality" and make it's own "decisions" by choosing randomly between the ones programed. It's impossible for a computer to become self aware and essentially "alive".

A computer can add to his knowledge base though.

This is pretty much were AI is going these days. Called depth learning or whatever. It's only the beginning and for now is used for very specific tasks like speech recognition, playing a game or analyzing images but eventually you'll have a computer able to do it all and obviously better than humans. No more strictly programmed answers just a knowledge base with algorithms to make a choice using this knowledge base. And of course the knowledge base can be updated by the AI itself based on his successes and failures. It requires a lot of processing power though. Just for one specific task it requires pretty much a super computer and also a truck load of money.

Deep learning - Wikipedia

Top 10 artificial intelligence (AI) technology trends for 2018

Machine Learning and AI trends for 2018: What to Expect?

AI vs. ML vs. DL | Skymind

 

[waffledave]

View attachment 131043

Picard's flute lol.

I prefer Riker's trombone (as a tromboner... trombonist? myself)

 

[theghost1]

Why is Price putting up with this bloody incompetence from this organization...if they do not want to spend their cap space and try and win.....why won't Price just ask to be traded....why would he want to play for a team that has no chance to win.

 

[Bryson]

Why is Price putting up with this bloody incompetence from this organization...if they do not want to spend their cap space and try and win.....why won't Price just ask to be traded....why would he want to play for a team that has no chance to win.

10.5 million reasons

 

[NotProkofievian]

10.5 million reasons

But a cup ain't one.

 

[Laurentide]

I prefer Riker's trombone (as a tromboner... trombonist? myself)

Riker always seemed to get a "tromboner" whenever Deanna Troi showed up.