Hacker News Reader

Comment by pekk | Hacker News Reader

People will pay for solutions to problems. Creating 'mind' is not a well-defined problem, let alone 'mind which creates minds'. No legislation is necessary to make software belong to someone. There's no reason to think that the natural, inevitable endpoint of building software is that we will be killed by robots.

And none of this has anything to do with evolution, which really entails nothing about the creation of hostile sentient robot replacements for ourselves.

View on HN

People will pay for robots/AI if it replaces a larger amount of salary paid to humans. This is already happening. The question is whether once all the 'easy' stuff has been automated whether we'll be able to automate the 'hard' stuff that we'd currently call intelligent work; but there will definitely be strong economic incentives for it under normal capitalist system. And if/when AI catches up with human intelligence, there will still be economic incentives to create greater than human intelligence. Killer robots comes from whether the AI designers will be smart enough to create AI powerful enough to be economically advantageous but with 'values' that are close enough to those of the human race.

We are at a stage now where its becoming easier to automate medium difficulty tasks (things like general office paper work - the lower-end white collar jobs) but we cant automate some 'easier' 'blue-collar' things like cleaning toilets and laying roof tiles - as its cheaper to get a low-class worker to do it than create a robot.

The middle class are the ones who are going to feel the heat over the next century. The smartest humans will not need to worry until a true singularity begins, really.

That depends what you mean by "smartest". The lower levels of law work, once occupied by paralegals and young lawyers, are already becoming subject to automation. Medical diagnosis, too.

The expensive, expert professions are precisely where there's the most economic incentive to automate as much as you can.

Paralegals and young lawyers are firmly in the middle class, aren't they?

I think rather than 'smartest' its better to say people at the top of their field, if that field requires substantial intellectual activity.

But do you mean top of the field in terms of best employee at their rank or at the top of their workplace's hierarchy of ranks?

Top of their field as in the broad industry wide-categorization.

For example, not the best bricklayer but the most productive (profit for business produced per hour of employee work) construction worker.

That probably isn't a bricklayer but maybe the inspector or the general foreman.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com