We’d plan tax reform BEFORE income distribution undergoes the full onslaught of machine automation.
The UN would fund and deploy aerial nano-bots that fly around the World destroying unregistered guns.
Religious opinion leaders would MODERNISE religious doctrine to accommodate future technological change.
We’d REFORM things in society before the flat part of the (technology) exponential curve turns into the steep part of the exponential curve.
Government social services would MANAGE people’s expectations in a honest way upfront, not make excuses in a patronising way afterwards. Prevention is usually cheaper that cure.
We’d APPOINT lobby groups to represent the animal kingdom and not pretend that humans and corporates have all the votes and all the freedom to act.
We’d ENCOURAGE people to self-learn to cope with global changes in progress.
Economists who argue that technology will create jobs as much as it will destroy them, arguably miss the point.
Automation isn’t there to create jobs but to complete tasks. Intelligent networks have no moral imperative to work less hard, just so human jobs will be preserved. Quite the opposite.
AI systems would probably state (if asked) that efficiency that preserves the Planet’s scarce resources should take priority over human job protection. Even if unemployment destroys social cohesion, causes personal stress and evokes economic migration.
Humans have Systems have
Doubts Probability ranges
Nagging fears Outstanding routines
A bucket list Outstanding routines
Celebrity envy Outstanding routines
Distant relatives The Cloud
Love & lust for each other Power & cooling requirements
Satisfaction Programme completion
Charisma Networked servers
Selective memories Corrupt disk sectors
Charmed lives Uninterruptible power supplies
A fear of robots Identify robots as just another peripheral to communicate with…
• Water and shock resistant
• Multi sensor
• Virus inhibiting
• Self organising and self promoting
• Social network-enabled
• Form follows function
• Carbon and neuron network advanced construction
• Uninterruptable power supply
• Dual processor (head and heart)
• Dimension-scalable with time
• Richly-textured aesthetic
• Limited edition
• Love orientated
• Self replicating
• Entertainment friendly
• Value creating
• Global adaptability
Design improvement v2.0 opportunities
• Blind-spot reduction
• Humility attachment
• Human character-recognition sensor
• Essential-criteria filter
• Moral compass
• Narcotic addiction and alcoholism-delete button
With future advances in intelligent networks and their peripherals (robotics), will the people most valued economically in a society cease being energy-field owners/entertainment celebs/hedge fund managers? And instead be the entrepreneurs – those who can generate and sell brilliant ideas (to the intelligent networks and between each other), in return for goods and services?
If so, smart governments would be wise to plan ahead. They can introduce policies that actively encourage the creation of a nation of designers and inventors – challenge everyone to relentlessly practice their design and inventive skills to benefit themselves & the nation (idea entrepreneurship). Then eventually, with the rise of intelligent networks (self-organising), people will have something of value to trade – the more brilliant the human idea, the greater the resulting payment from the intelligent system.
It’s reasonable to assume that Intelligent networks & their peripherals will eventually do the engineering/commercialisation (simulation, translation, prototype fabrication, scale production and marketing work), leaving people to add value through imaginative design.
Universities, R&D Institutes, Corporate skunkworks & garage inventors (including the maker movement) – they all deserve accolades far in excess of their current image in society. Smart governments will find ways to foster innovation, not just in the ivory towers & skunkworks, but in the channels that link ivory tower innovation with garage invention too (who says university academics are the only ones with good ideas and why can’t the gov funding incentives change to reward research cultures to innovate themselves?).
Design solves inflexibility problems, environmental pollution problems, over-crowding problems, awareness & perception problems and security problems. It both creates opportunities and exploits them. Even politics at its heart is about clever design. Although sadly, too many politicians aren’t clever designers – leading by example and keeping their policy-makers on their toes.
Of course design is hard, taking energy, commitment and persistence. However, as everything else gets automated, hard design is our future as a species. Food for thought?
Our perceptions of robots come from computer game constructs, old sci-fi movies/TV programmes or kids toys.
Perhaps too often, our imagination and perceptions are constrained by our language. Does a robot need to be atoms rather than bits? On one level, will the term ‘robot’ become subsumed into just ‘intelligent network’ with some networks have physical peripherals operating remotely on a periodic basis? And even change its identity between atoms and bits over time? Does this matter?
Can a robot be 100% organic – perhaps existing at nano scale inside a non robotic creature and does that give it a separate identity regarding legal liability say?
When does a human-assisted tool (such as current surgical robotics) become an autonomous robot, operating according to the Asimov ‘laws’ of robotics? Will our grandchildren be composed partly of cyber materials and inherit from us our digital signature, as much as our genetical material?
What happens to the academic disciplines of economics, accounting, strategy & marketing when intelligent network robots get involved – do they redefine that theory in profoundly different ways, eliminating concepts like ‘economies of scale’? Should we value and measure (fundraising) impact differently if it’s from human intervention versus machine intervention?
Should corporate law apply to intelligent networks in the same way it applies to corporate entities? In the next 30 years, would ‘intelligent network’ peripherals govern us better than we can govern ourselves? And can we afford to wait that long?
What are your thoughts?