• oldnag posted an update 3 months, 1 week ago

    Would you damage or rebel against tech that you did not agree with? So may have taken your job, invasion of privacy, creep you out looking human or not etc etc. Legal issues ok but just go with the question.

    We use tech here of course but this is just the very early stages of what will happen. No doubt Skynet / Matrix will happen if we let it.

    Asimov law of robotics may or not apply of course.

    • I regularly pull a funny face at security cameras.

      Does that count?

    • I’ve got my sabots to hand where do you want me to chuck them?

    • I refuse to send email read receipts in a passive aggressive manner.

      Mostly that is to annoy irritating HR people rather than technology.

      I regularly tell Doris (my satnav) to f&*^ off and that she doesn’t know where we are going. However as she is an older model with no voice activation this has little effect.

      On a serious note, I wouldn’t have Alexa in my house. Orwellian. But he didn’t predict that people would choose and pay for it.

    • I once shouted at some software I didn’t like, then uninstalled it and defragged my hard drive! That showed the bastard…

    • “Would you damage or rebel against tech that you did not agree with?”

      Of course. I destroy every tin opener I can get my hands on – usually illicitly in friends’ houses

      The vicious tin openers are going to take over the world. DESTROY YOURS NOW

    • To all. It is a serious question, am not joking. When you have no job , either at home or work you have been redundant because some tech has replaced you. Could be software that does your job far better than you ever could.

      Robotic technology is not science fiction it is here and now. It maybe ten, thirty or fifty years down the line when it may come knocking on you door. Yes through out history progress moves on but we are on the edge of issues that you only see in films.

    • I think future robots and AI will be very psychologically damaging to a lot of people knowing that they have nothing to strive for and that a robot will be able to do everything that they can do and more. The devil makes work of idle hands.

      I think robots will spell the end of capitalism all together and then what will the elites do when is everyone is just sat around doing nothing and just multiplying? People always want to seem important and stay at the top of pile so I imagine that some will try to come up with new ways to control people. Maybe they might make up fake religions and stuff (some one in silicon valley already has created his own religion announcing AI as god ). It is also not that far fetched to think with the rise of technology and possibly rise is anger against the elite that in a couple years time the politicians will be coming up with ways not to keep the deficit down but to keep overpopulation down.. but how far will things go?

      • We are thinking along similar lines on this subject. Thanks for taking on board a serious subject that some on here surprisingly think its far fetched. We all like our tech but some have not realized the path we are going down, despite there being alot of media of various kinds on this.

      • There’s plenty of organizations which need volunteers, though, and charities. There’s many ways of feeling useful which don’t involve working for money.

      • They could come up tournaments to entertain the masses – call them the Hunger Games or something.

    • I agree there are some potentially dystopian outcomes possible.

      I see two things that need to dealt with: AI surpassing human intelligence, if it can surpass our own a little then it can surpass it a lot but we don’t know how it will ‘think’. These are good (and scary) posts on the subject.

      The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence

      The AI Revolution: Our Immortality or Extinction

      The second and more immediate thing is who gets to use, profit from and control the technology. At the moment we seem to running towards a system where an elite will control and profit from technology but many will not.

      • Well we should control it and I don’t see why not. The sort of stuff that’s being discussed comes out of silicon valley type companies, Google, Apple etc and ultimately therefore we know where the money goes. There’s no reason we shouldn’t tax them in a way that provides a universal income but keeps the economics of the world ticking over.

        I’m more concerned about the intrusiveness of technology into our lives. The way that data is gathered, stored and shared about us. While I do my best to frustrate this process by giving incorrect personal details about myself whenever possible I am under no illusions that this is particularly effective. Once the IoT (Internet of Things) gets up and running and your fridge starts building a picture of your eating habits and your television records how long you spend lounging on the sofa this will only get worse. The way we have of fighting back of course, is to not buy things which snoop on us.

    • In all seriousness, the tin foil hat brigade may be onto something. Some modern TVs are voice activated. Voice recognition works by sending the instruction to a server which compares against a large database. So your conversations while watching TV are being sent via the internet to some big server somewhere. If you have a TV which is turned on by instructions then it will be listening even when the TV is switched off…. Now, where’s my collander?

    • I think we are all aware of the concerns. I somehow doubt smashing an iphone is the solution, however.

      • No because its your phone. If however you were only allowed to drive at certain times and speeds (this tech is already here) but you could disable it on your car? Or only drive on permitted routes. So many possible things we could be limited / stopped to do because authorities wish it. See China now to how it could be in any country if we let it.

    • By replacing all workers with robots and not paying anyone anything you kill demand.

      No jobs.

      No one buying stuff.

      No need for robots.

      • Exactly this.

        Just look at most of human history (pre-industrial revolution).

        We had a wealthy elite/nobility, and essentially everyone else was dirt poor.

        The economy didn’t expand, there was no such thing as growth and nobody had any incentive to borrow money (not that anyone would lend it) to invest and grow. As a result things chugged along pretty much the same as they did the previous century.

        Then industrialisation came along and the cost of production went down. Therefore the cost of goods went down. Workers could afford to buy the stuff they were building and the rich elites realised the benefit of investing profits in more means of production and the economy grew. Suddenly the concept of continual economic growth, based on rising demand tied to an expanding consumer class took off.

        Do you think that Google/Amazon want to regress to a 1700s style economy? If the vast majority are scavenging rubbish tips or hunting squirrels because they’ve been put out of work by AI with no alternative, who buy the goods and services that these companies cannot exist without being sold?

        It is a worry, and we have a large chance of completely fecking this up, but the problem isn’t that technology is coming (that is a given), it is how we want to adjust our society to make the change as painless as possible.

        • Maybe Google/amazon want to regress to 1700’s economy. Google’s whole business model is based upon controlling the internet.. monopolizing what people can and cannot see online unless companies pay for adwords etc. Also we already seen how various tech company’s including amazon.. uber etc treat their human workers.

          • @oldnag clone why would Google want to take the world back to the 1700s? No one would have any money to spend?

            Why do you that what they want matters? We in the West live in democracies where we can tell companies how they are to behave, not the other way round.

            • It not about money is it though its about control. For example Mark zukerberg made a speech about giving everyone free money.

              Also its bit pathetic talking about democracy and then referring to me as “oldnag clone” just because you disagree with me you want to undermine the legitimacy of my comments by making out im just a clone.

            • @troll You’re not making much sense. Zuckerberg (and many Silicon Valley billionaires) support some for of UBI.

              Again, this is so that everybody has a basic level of income to spend on consumer goods. Which are of course advertised on Facebook. The way you word it, it’s some kind of Dr Evil plot to enslave the world. I’m not saying there aren’t dangers, but do you really think that’s the motivation?

              Also, for the most part these are publicly traded companies answerable to shareholders (eg. mine and your pension portfolios) who demand maximum return – so quite frankly they’re not going to do anything to jeopardise their business model.

            • @troll So Mark Zukerberg is evil because he wants to give everyone free money?

            • @ericPoints Mao, Mariam, Pol Pot , Stalin all wanted to give people free money too because it just that simple.

              Your missing my point. For example lots of tech company’s are worth billions but do not even make a single penny in profit…but are worth so much because they CONTROL their market.

              What would the value of money be if everyone gets free money? But this wouldn’t bother these tech billionaires because they control all the tech that will service us in the future so it doesn’t matter to them if money becomes worthless because they will be ones with all the control.

              If Mark zukerberg and others really wanted to help they would give away 99% of their wealth still leaving them with enough to never have to work again.

            • @troll I agree 100%! I am wary of tech, can see benefits but the control / know all element is becoming more Orwellian. Would never have that Alexa thing or any thing similar, but most of us have net access and wifi. Ultimately what’s in scifi will happen as most are walking towards tech with tunnel vision.

          • No, Google need to sell advertising. In order for advertising to work, companies have to be able to sell products to consumers. Therefore consumers have to have disposable income. Take that away through mass-unemployment and Google go out of business.

            • You just have to do a product google search to find that this isn’t the case! Google and amazon are fixing the online economy together.

    • We seem to have two issues here.

      One is being a Luddite. I would suggest you go look at all the jobs that have been created in the tech sector. This fear of tech taking people’s jobs shows the same short sightedness of the machine breakers of the textile mills. Just because some jobs becomes redundant, doesn’t mean new jobs aren’t being created all the time. If this wasn’t true, we would not have progressed as a species at all.

      I think the second point is the Big Brother question. Yes this is scary and we should be keeping an eye on this. However, as we live in the UK we are far better off than a number of countries, and I would suggest that technology is far prevalent and advanced here.

      I would also point out that the gathering of big data is incredibly useful for a number of applications, from more accurate sat navs (which seem to be a bone of contention hear) to better health care.

      • I’m firmly on the side of seeing technology as a net benefit (surgery without anaesthesia anyone?) but I have to disagree with your sentiment.

        When we moved from the industrial age into a largely service-based economy, humans were heavily displaced by machines in manual jobs, but we still had our cognitive skills with which to create new jobs and generally stay superior to the machines. I’ve never ‘lifted a finger’ in my 20 years post-uni career (did a few manual jobs at college) but have used my brain to have quite decent career in a jobs that never even existed before the late 90s.

        The next wave will be machines/software that are far superior to humans in cognitive skills – better drivers, better advertising writers, better lawyers, better doctors. Even better computer programmers – when machines write their own software. We need to get used to the fact that we’re all going to be pretty dumb in relation to the machines we rely on.

        There is without a doubt going to be seismic shift in the availability of jobs and we’re not going to be able to mitigate it all by simply creating new ones.

        We simply have to look at whether having a job, and certainly doing it for 40 hours a week, 48 weeks a year, is a necessity in life. I don’t have the answer, and it will be multi-generational problem and could not really take hold for another 10, or 50 years, but its something we need to start thinking about now.

    • To all:

      Have put a valid question here then.

      But no one has yet answered the question would they actively rebel or destroy tech they did not agree with? That’s either now or in future.

    • Rebelling against Tech? It’s not going to happen. Look at how many billions of people are quite happily living their brainwashed, by Apple for one, lives. We’ll just sheepishly accept whatever’s thrown at us. They’ll just moan about on social media with their mobile devices.

    • Any tool you create can be used by anyone for any reason. Sometimes good and sometimes bad.

      Why damage the technology when the real fault lies with the people who manage the implementation and the end user. The only problem with social media (if it is a problem, and not just a by product) is that it’s a prosumer environment. The people using it are also the people producing it.

      People are wary and becoming more aware of what they share and how it is shared, and the pitfalls of over sharing.

      No I wouldn’t destroy the technology. I would call for more new technology to regulate the use of new technology as it emerges.

    • If stackoverflow is anything to go by then the future is doomed and will be ran by a bunch of pedantic boring nerds.