Science and the Future

Mohsen Ezz El-Din Al-Bakr

Registered Member

After thirty or forty years, we may no longer need to work except as a hobby—like hunting in the wilderness for someone who is not actually hungry, or who does not hunt to find food, but hunts as a pastime rather than out of necessity, as our ancestors did—because robots and artificial intelligence will perform most tasks. Technology develops cumulatively: it starts small, then multiplies and spreads. For example, in its early days the computer was only for the wealthy, whereas today it sits in every person’s pocket in the form of a phone, just as happened with cars, airplanes, and household appliances, which began as limited and expensive and then became available to everyone.
This can be imagined through the example of a mold: a precisely crafted metal piece is produced by a small mold. But who made the mold? And who made the tools that made the mold? And so on. Industrial and technological processes accumulate, with each step depending on the previous one. The same logic applies to electronic memory: each memory cell stores only a single bit, yet it is manufactured through microscopic molds, such that a single fabrication process can produce millions or billions of cells at once. With each generation, the cells become smaller and more precise, and their number increases within the same area. This explains Moore’s Law and the continuous explosion in the number of transistors, which transformed the computer from a room-sized machine into a device in the hand of every human being.
Here lies the secret of the rapid transformation expected over the coming decades: moving along the exponential growth curve. The efforts that took thousands of years and centuries in ancient times represented the slow, early stages of exponential growth, where the results were modest—like 2² or 2³—small outputs despite the exponential nature of growth. Today, however, we have passed the inflection point and entered the later stages of this exponential growth, where every small advance multiplies previous capability, producing massive and surprising results. This is why radical change that once required thousands of years in ancient times now requires only a few decades.
This same cumulative process applies to robots and artificial intelligence: every small advance opens the door to a greater one, and productive capacity moves from a small class of the wealthy to something widespread among all people. Most routine jobs will be automated, and the human role will become creative and hobby-like, as predicted by thinkers such as Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Kurzweil, Yuval Noah Harari, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates. The future that seems distant today will become possible and logical, and work will become a choice rather than an economic necessity—just as computers and modern devices have become available to all of humanity.
In the end, the most intelligent people will be the most prominent among humans, because ordinary workers—who once formed the backbone of the economy and could even become wealthy through labor—will be displaced by the more intelligent, many of whom had previously remained in the background. This follows the law of evolution and the principle of competitive exclusion.

Best regards,
Eng. Mohsen Ezz al-Din al-Bakri
 

After thirty or forty years, we may no longer need to work except as a hobby—like hunting in the wilderness for someone who is not actually hungry, or who does not hunt to find food, but hunts as a pastime rather than out of necessity, as our ancestors did—because robots and artificial intelligence will perform most tasks. Technology develops cumulatively: it starts small, then multiplies and spreads. For example, in its early days the computer was only for the wealthy, whereas today it sits in every person’s pocket in the form of a phone, just as happened with cars, airplanes, and household appliances, which began as limited and expensive and then became available to everyone.
This can be imagined through the example of a mold: a precisely crafted metal piece is produced by a small mold. But who made the mold? And who made the tools that made the mold? And so on. Industrial and technological processes accumulate, with each step depending on the previous one. The same logic applies to electronic memory: each memory cell stores only a single bit, yet it is manufactured through microscopic molds, such that a single fabrication process can produce millions or billions of cells at once. With each generation, the cells become smaller and more precise, and their number increases within the same area. This explains Moore’s Law and the continuous explosion in the number of transistors, which transformed the computer from a room-sized machine into a device in the hand of every human being.
Here lies the secret of the rapid transformation expected over the coming decades: moving along the exponential growth curve. The efforts that took thousands of years and centuries in ancient times represented the slow, early stages of exponential growth, where the results were modest—like 2² or 2³—small outputs despite the exponential nature of growth. Today, however, we have passed the inflection point and entered the later stages of this exponential growth, where every small advance multiplies previous capability, producing massive and surprising results. This is why radical change that once required thousands of years in ancient times now requires only a few decades.
This same cumulative process applies to robots and artificial intelligence: every small advance opens the door to a greater one, and productive capacity moves from a small class of the wealthy to something widespread among all people. Most routine jobs will be automated, and the human role will become creative and hobby-like, as predicted by thinkers such as Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Kurzweil, Yuval Noah Harari, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates. The future that seems distant today will become possible and logical, and work will become a choice rather than an economic necessity—just as computers and modern devices have become available to all of humanity.
In the end, the most intelligent people will be the most prominent among humans, because ordinary workers—who once formed the backbone of the economy and could even become wealthy through labor—will be displaced by the more intelligent, many of whom had previously remained in the background. This follows the law of evolution and the principle of competitive exclusion.

Best regards,
Eng. Mohsen Ezz al-Din al-Bakri
 
After thirty or forty years, we may no longer need to work except as a hobby
They were telling us that thirty or forty years ago though, and thirty or forty years before that too. The people predicting (or selling the image of) a technological utopia have never seen their predictions played out quite as they imagined.

Our digital technology has indeed improved in leaps and bounds over the last few decades, but we've not used that to do the same things with less effort and resources, we've applied the same (or more) effort and resources, using the technology to produce ever so much more (albeit, often quantity over quality). And as we all get used to having that much more, the demand requires the supply to continue to ramp up. I see no reason for the next steps in technological development to be used in significantly different ways.

After all, my computer here does indeed have significantly more processing power than the commercial servers I used when I first worked in IT, but for all that, what I use the computer for today is still less productive or valuable overall (especially given I was working for a major hospital back then and I'm replying to a pointless forum post today :cool: ).

This explains Moore’s Law and the continuous explosion in the number of transistors, which transformed the computer from a room-sized machine into a device in the hand of every human being.
There is reason to believe Moore's law is already slowing though (largely due to fundamental physical limitations) so baring some significant practical leaps in quantum computing, that is unlikely to continue. There are also diminishing benefits in ever faster processing power for most applications.

This same cumulative process applies to robots and artificial intelligence: every small advance opens the door to a greater one, and productive capacity moves from a small class of the wealthy to something widespread among all people.
Well, first off, robotics and artificial intelligence are two entirely separate fields with very different development paths.

Robotics predates digital computing to an extent and has certainly evolved alongside it, so isn't due any major leaps in capability in the foreseeable future. We already use it extensively, so there aren't going to be many truly new applications.

The development of AI isn't based on the same principles as Moore's law, and while capabilities of some models have been increasing in leaps and bounds recently, those kinds of gains won't continue for long, and working out the last few kinks and limitations are likely to continue to pose ever more difficulty. That isn't to say that AI won't provide lots of opportunity in many fields, but it's not going to be the era-ending shift that some people like to imagine (or again, sell).
 
After thirty or forty years, we may no longer need to work except as a hobby
This doesn't happen in practice.

Whenever our jobs/lives are made easer that we could work less, generally we choose as a society to use that time instead to get more done.

A simplistic example:

What's supposed to happen:
"You have been budgeted for a robot that will facilitate your office work. You can now complete your 35 hours of work in a mere 28 hours! You can have a 4-day week!"

What really happens:
"Great! A robot that increases my productivity by 20%? I'll be able to get 20% work done in my 35 hours! Because:

- my boss is never going to let me just take off an extra day every week. That would kill productivity. There are profits to be made and competitors to beat - and none of them are working 4-day weeks.

- Nor will Bob - my office rival - who is bucking for the same promotion as me. Got to show I'm a go-getter.

- Nor will the Jones', on my street, who are buying their third car, while we still only have two. After all, three is the standard now.

- I can always use the extra money to take the kids on a better vacation."
 

After thirty or forty years, we may no longer need to work except as a hobby—like hunting in the wilderness for someone who is not actually hungry, or who does not hunt to find food, but hunts as a pastime rather than out of necessity, as our ancestors did—because robots and artificial intelligence will perform most tasks. Technology develops cumulatively: it starts small, then multiplies and spreads.
Not in capitalism. In captialism, you are valued for the work you can do that cannot be automated. If technology replaces your job, you will not move to a state where you are paid for the work technology does. You will move to a state of unemployment.

In the end, the most intelligent people will be the most prominent among humans, because ordinary workers—who once formed the backbone of the economy and could even become wealthy through labor—will be displaced by the more intelligent, many of whom had previously remained in the background. This follows the law of evolution and the principle of competitive exclusion.

Watch the movie "Idiocracy."
 
How many automobiles have Americans trashed since 1950? Where is the data on all of that Depreciation? Where are the PhD economists talking about that DEPRECIATION?

What is the *NET* Domestic Product, NDP?

NDP = GDP - Depreciation

But that Depreciation is Dcap, Capital Goods only! Have Economists noticed? Maybe it should be:

NDP = GDP - (Dcap + Dcon)

Dcon is Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods

It is just a simple Algebra problem.

Shouldn't even techno-illiterates like economists with PhDs have figured out Planned Obsolescence in automobiles by 1980, a Decade after the Moon Landing? Ask two or more AIs when PhD economists should have figured out Planned Obsolescence in automobiles. Then ask a real live economist for comparison.

Look up the prices of the Ford Model-T from 1908 to 1926. The price went down because he didn't make useless changes year after year. But mechanical engineering was advancing then. In 1939 the first US military plane to do 400 mph, the P-38 Lightning took to the sky. 30 years before the Moon Landing. 30 years after the Moon Landing Intel put 10,000,000 transistors on a chip in the Pentium 2. Transistors did not exist in 1939.

Why are we making ridiculous changes in automobiles while letting economists sweep the depreciation under a rug? Karl Marx used the word 'depreciation' 120 times in Das Kapital but there was no Planned Obsolescence or automobiles in 1883.

By saying nothing about Planned Obsolescence since 1960 the economics profession has been helping corporations rip everyone off.

But here we are with Gen-Z worried about the Future and Economists still do not talk about the NET Domestic Product and the missing Demand Side Depreciation.
 
Capitalism has chosen to make it as cheaply as possible, charge as much as possible, and bring out a new version as often as possible.
 
Adam Smith used the word 'education' EIGHTY Times in Wealth of Nations. He wrote "read, write and ACCOUNT" FIVE times. Have economists heard of him? I think they quit reading once they found the "Invisible Hand".

Every major country could have had mandatory accounting in high schools since 1950.

Where are the "Capitalist Economists" advocating mandatory accounting in high schools?
 
How many automobiles have Americans trashed since 1950? Where is the data on all of that Depreciation? Where are the PhD economists talking about that DEPRECIATION?
Interesting post, which I had missed last week. I will look further into this. It's often dramatic how the value of goods drop the moment they become "used." The whole psychology of consumerism, as a sort of treadmill where you are encouraged to be deeply dissatisfied when your possessions are no longer new and shiny, is fascinating.
 
Interesting post, which I had missed last week. I will look further into this. It's often dramatic how the value of goods drop the moment they become "used." The whole psychology of consumerism, as a sort of treadmill where you are encouraged to be deeply dissatisfied when your possessions are no longer new and shiny, is fascinating.
The Psychology is interesting but there were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the United States in 1995. About 80% of them were owned by consumers.

Economists do not talk about the NET Domestic Product and do not put the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods into the equation.

We are talking about Hundred$ of Billion$ of Dollar$ per year. Research the prices of the Ford Model-T from 1908-26. Are we paying more to get less just so it will look different every year?
 
The Psychology is interesting but there were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the United States in 1995. About 80% of them were owned by consumers.

Economists do not talk about the NET Domestic Product and do not put the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods into the equation.

We are talking about Hundred$ of Billion$ of Dollar$ per year. Research the prices of the Ford Model-T from 1908-26. Are we paying more to get less just so it will look different every year?
Yup. Remember when clothes lasted an adult years or even decades, and it was assumed some sewing or knitting would be done at signs of wear?

Same with children's toys. Now a lot of them are plastic crap, swiftly cracked or broken, then tossed in a landfill because only clear/translucent flattenable plastic can be recycled in a lot of places.
 
Yup. Remember when clothes lasted an adult years or even decades, and it was assumed some sewing or knitting would be done at signs of wear?

Same with children's toys. Now a lot of them are plastic crap, swiftly cracked or broken, then tossed in a landfill because only clear/translucent flattenable plastic can be recycled in a lot of places.
Sadly true. But I do try to hang onto things that would be pain to replace. I’ve found a very capable tailor, of S Asian descent, down the road who runs a dry cleaning business with his wife. I have managed to get a sweater repaired, 5 pairs of trousers let out at the waist, 2 cushions repaired, using spare fabric my wife had squirrelled away in the loft, and 2 roman blinds repaired that were frayed at the bottom. This has probably saved me getting on for £1000, quite apart from not having to throw the items away.

I have the feeling the culture of “make do and mend” is still alive in the S Asian community. (There is also a fantastic fabric and sewing emporium a couple of miles away in Tooting, the sort of thing I thought had died out with my grandparents.) All part of Vance’s “civilisational erasure”, no doubt. ;)
 
How many automobiles have Americans trashed since 1950? Where is the data on all of that Depreciation? Where are the PhD economists talking about that DEPRECIATION?

What is the *NET* Domestic Product, NDP?

NDP = GDP - Depreciation

But that Depreciation is Dcap, Capital Goods only! Have Economists noticed? Maybe it should be:

NDP = GDP - (Dcap + Dcon)
Sure, that works for "net valuable stuff in existence."

Why are we making ridiculous changes in automobiles

Because people want cars that are faster, safer, more efficient and cheaper, and secondarily have more bells and whistles. In capitalism consumers drive the market.

while letting economists sweep the depreciation under a rug?

?? No one is. GDP is a measure of economic output, and that's why it's useful. An economy that produces only products that last less than a month would be a horrendous waste of resources, but in terms of GDP and all its implications (jobs, velocity of money, ability to pay debt service etc) it would not be an issue. And that's the sort of thing that economists care about.

Look up the prices of the Ford Model-T from 1908 to 1926. The price went down because he didn't make useless changes year after year. But mechanical engineering was advancing then.

By . . . implementing planned obsolescence.

One of the now-famous stories about Henry Ford was that after they started seeing Model T's in junkyards (around 1918) he sent agents to examine the junked cars. He wanted reports on what was worn out and what was not. There were parts with various degrees of wear, but one thing that always seemed always pristine was the kingpost. (I don't even know what that is; it was part of the car's steering system.)

When you tell this story to first year mech E students, many of them think his conclusion would have been "so make everything else like the kingpost." But his actual orders after seeing the report was "Make the kingpost out of cheaper material." That brought down the cost of the cars.
 
Back
Top