I agree, we have the means to do this now & in fact as I said at the beginning with reference to The Gapminder Foundation, all the trends are in that direction, its just not as much or as fast we want.
What AI, robots & cheap renewables will make different - is that they hugely empower existing efforts & more importantly in a completely decentralized way put power into people's hands.
I'd say local corruption & mis-government is a huge barrier to the poorest & least able being able to help themselves. But this tech means they can bypass that, it will be direct in their hands.
Also - it will be vastly more powerful. When we have 1 AI Doctor - we can reproduce it millions of times for pennies & deliver it via cell/smartphones, that almost everyone will posses.
74% of billionaire wealth comes from rent seeking.
So what would stop the future companies from charging as much for the use of AI doctor apps as the market allows them to (i.e. as much as for human doctors today), and cashing the surplus as profit?
This is a trend we're already seeing in every other economic sector. Based on all other existing AI applications, it's very likely that a hypothetical AI doctor will be server-based and access to its diagnoses would be controlled by arbitrary fees. Copying this software wouldn't just be technically hard, it'd be a rogue act forbidden under several laws.
True now, but they are in for a big & inevitable fall.
Their world only works when incomes constantly rise & prices steadily inflate. If you have the opposite - constant deflation & falling incomes - all their wealth implodes in on itself.
It's mathematically impossible to have all today's wealth denominated in stocks, bonds, pension funds, property prices underlaid by a financial system based on debt issuance growing the money supply - when you have a world of constant deflation & falling incomes.
Yet that will be our reality as AI/Robots take over more and more.
So what would stop the future companies from charging as much for the use of AI doctor apps as the market allows them to
If you can reproduce something by the millions for pennies, I doubt the market will charge much. No one company will have a hold on this.
AI is dependent on massive quantities of data which only big companies can get by having everyone use their products. This is exactly why Google is the only search engine that actually gives the results people want. It's also a self reinforcing feedback loop where the monopoly of a single company gets worse and worse.
How much does it cost to use Google?
you're not paying money, rather information about you but you're still paying
Fair enough, but you are lying if you try to argue that the value you receive does not greatly exceeds your "payment" in terms of data mining.
Or do you not use Google?
I think their information extraction technology is still primitive enough to be a fair price to pay. Once they start integrating that technology into nanobots, effectively allowing them to collect 100% accurate information about us, might be a point where the price will be too high. Right now, I have no problem paying this price.
Maybe in that dystopian future the last holdouts of free humanity will be using askjeeves.
Bing will have long since assimilated anyone foolish enough to search for porn on it.
You can take my land, my life and my accurate information...BUT YOU CANNOT TAKE MY PORN!
There are a few problems with your argument here.
lying if you try to argue that the value you receive does not greatly exceeds your "payment" in terms of data mining.
Strange being that's how Google makes money. By data mining your information and selling it to advertisers indirectly. Google would be just another run of the mill ad firm if not for the detailed information they have on you. Google has done so well with this that they dominate the internet ad business far beyond all competitors.
I'll say that is impossible. Much like it is near impossible not to use Facebook. Cellphones have integrated themselves into our lives. The vast majority of people in the US have one (or more). These devices collect massive amounts of information about you and keep it, that you don't even 'keep' about yourself. It can be difficult for me to remember where I was last month, multiple data providers in your life keep that information. When you go in stores, your cellphone gives information to many different vendors that track your phone via WiFi.
Even if you don't have a cell phone, simply being around other people that take pictures of you allow these companies to build shadow profiles of you based off facial identification (and probably voice recognition).
Nothing strange about it, economics isn't a zero sum game. Google profits off the data you all too willingly give to them and you get an amazing resource for free.
I'll say that is impossible
No one is holding a gun to your head. Plenty of peolle currently alive did just fine without those services, and I know plenty who get by still without facebook. They are integrated into our lives because we choose for them to be. You could chuck your smart phone out, delete your facebook tomorrow, and find out information the shitty old fashioned way without Google. But you won't because you know that you would be losing out.
Still, the point is that, hey look, in this example the service is available even to those in poverty, despite the monopoly on the data used to train it.
Wat? You seem to forget google is one of the biggest advertising firms in the world.
Dude. You do not have a clue. Why does software cost hundreds of dollars if it can be reproduced infinitely for free over the internet (piracy is free after all). The fact that mp3 songs can be stored virtually means that every song si free now? Of course not, and the same will happen with "virtual doctors" if that ever comes to be true. Companies will block access to this software via massive paywalls. Do you seriously think that technology has the ability to get the good out of the hearts of people? The ruling elites are just looking for ways to make bigger profits because that is what capitalism dictates, and automation looks more likely to further capitalist practices than to abolish it.
Well you can currently get just about all software and music etc. for free via piracy, so based on that the likely scenario is high prices that you don't necessarily have to pay.
I am not sure that people would make AI doctors so easy, even if possible, to pirate.
True, but it becomes really, really difficult to prevent piracy when something is used all over the world. And then you'd have to ask whether you'd want to keep it from people: the incumbent service provider's advantage is in the data already collected (the algorithms tend to be pretty open), so the incumbent has an incentive to get as many people using their software as possible. You'd ideally want to rip off your rich customers, but also collect data from the billions who can't afford to pay much or anything.
I agree that a free-ish service would be the way to go in this case. Let's hope it comes to that in the future.
Well the upward bound of cost is already set at the current cost human based medicine, so the only direction it can go is down. While development cost would likely be huge, given the massive potential of the market I don't see how you would avoid multiple entrants as time progressed.
Copying this software wouldn't just be technically hard, it'd be a rogue act forbidden under several laws.
Laws never stopped any illegal acts happening during known history. Quite the contrary, as soon as you outlaw something, you raise the incentive for doing it.
In the current scientific publishing system, the taxpayer first pays for doing the research, then pays a publisher publishing the results, and finally pays the publisher for access to the results.
One student thought that was incredibly unfair and started downloading all the paywalled articles to make them free.
He was sentenced to 35 years in prison, 1 million in fines and committed suicide shortly afterwards.
Aaron Swartz, everybody.
The articles are still paywalled today.
It would be a rogue act, like whenever I watch a movie ever, but it wouldn't be technically difficult.
There's a software on IBM Watson that can diagnose pancreas cancer better than any human oncologist. If this stuff is so easy to hack, I challenge you to find me a copy.
I mean, it wouldn't be so easy that I can do it right now to prove a point. But I bet I could get it if you gave me some money for bribes, and some time, and also, to be realistic, if I subcontracted the job out to professionals. (I'm assuming that the model in question is treated like the patient data it is trained on, and some effort has gone into securing it.) All I mean is that it might require social engineering or bribery or outright burglary, but it wouldn't be some kind of engineering enigma. You just need to steal the file. And if the software is used worldwide, then it only takes one well-intentioned person to steal it and give it to someone who can copy it. And of course anyone with a conscience would want to share the file, if we were living in this kind of dystopia.
I feel like you shouldn't of had to clarify. They specifically said that because they know you don't have an extremely advanced AI system in your own home at this exact moment. But within 20 years, that may be possible. I think it's inevitable that such a powerful system would be released to everyone. Do you pay for GPS location services right now?
I agree with you, although I also agree with the other guy that we should think very hard about how to make sure that access is well-spread, given the human tendency to seek control etc.
OpenAI is a non-profit artificial intelligence research company. Our mission is to build safe AI, and ensure AI's benefits are as widely and evenly distributed as possible.
"it'd be a rogue act forbidden under several laws"
Just like the folder full of single-player video games I may or may not have?
If you can, for example, find a torrent for IBM Watson Virtual Agent, I'd be very impressed. This type of code generally isn't released to the public, which makes cracking it incredibly difficult.
The computational power to run Watson isn't trivial either I bet. And the electrical and embodied energy to manufacture and run those computer resources isn't trivial.
Maybe today the resources aren't trivial, however in a decade (or less) I might very well be running it on a smartwatch. I say this solely based on what the previous 30 years of progress in computing power has shown us. Heck, even just the last 10 years have been amazing. Consider the iPhone:
iPhone 1, it had 412 MHz ARM 11 processor.
iPhone 7, has Quad-core 2.34 GHz (2x Hurricane + 2x Zephyr)
Thats a helluva power increase in only 10 years and doesn't necessarily represent the best hardware possible, just the most marketable configuration to sell millions of.
Consider Rock's Law, the observation that the cost to build a semiconductor plant doubles every 4 years. How many more doublings can we afford?
Also, it's very important that you understand what has enabled the burst of developement over the past 30 years, and what could threaten or halt it in the near future. Long term, I hope we get there, but we'll have to survive resource depletion and climate change first.
I can understand technology streamlining the process, but as long as it is directed by the capitalist mode of distribution it will be be unlikely.
I'm thankful Capitalism has got us as far as it has. That said while I don't think it's going to disappear - it's an almost certainty that it's future is very much that of the junior partner in how we run our economies.
As paradoxical as it seems - Capitalism has dug itself into a corner it can't escape.
I'll refer you to my previous reply here. Capitalism as we know it cannot exist in a world where Robots/AI do most work - its structurally impossible.
Just as well we soon won't need it as much - as AI takes over more and more of the economy - what it provides constantly deflates in price towards free.
Capitalism dug itself into the corner that Marx said it would over a century ago. It was a predictable trajectory with a lot of terrible consequences for many people.
What seems to be replacing capitalism is an oligarchy. Those with money pay the people with guns to protect the system that legitimizes the money. Absent some massive revolution and overthrow of the current power and wealth holders, technology that is developed will either be used directly against the people (drones in warfare, spying, manipulating opinion) or indirectly (people are required to have a personal phone to maintain employment thus have one more bill to pay keeping the wealthy rich.)
There seems to be very little class analysis in the arguments made by /r/futurology, only blind faith in technology.
Quite honestly I've yet to find /r/collapse provide a link to a study or research. Still scrolling though.
This was intentional; last time the debaters tried to bury each other with references and data and it got really messy. If you want to challenge a single study result, feel free to ask in /r/collapse.
Welcome to r/Futurology, a subreddit devoted to the field of Future(s) Studies and speculation about the development of humanity, technology, and civilization.