This Guy Gets It

Undertaker

Established
Joined
May 26, 2017
Messages
159
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/4170364/former-facebook-executive-says-society-will-collapse-within-30-years-as-robots-put-half-of-humans-out-of-work/

A former Facebook executive has quit his job and now lives as a recluse in the wilderness – because he is convinced that machines will take over the world.

Antonio Garcia Martinez worked as a project manager for the social media giant in Silicon Valley but became terrified by the relentless march of technology.

He reckons that machines will have taken half of humanity’s jobs within 30 years, sparking revolt and armed conflict.

So he quit his job, fled his home and now lives in woodland north of Seattle with a gun for protection.

He spoke to new two-part BBC2 documentary “Secrets of Silicon Valley”, which explores the growing influence of the tech hub on global development.

Mr Martinez said: “If the world really does end, there aren’t going to be many places to run.

“Within 30 years, half of humanity won’t have a job. It could get ugly. There could be a revolution.

“I’ve seen what the world will look like in five to 10 years.

"You may not believe it but it's coming, and it's coming in the form of a self-driving truck that's going to run you over.

"There are 300 million guns in this country, one for every man, woman and child, and they're mostly in the hands of those who are getting economically displaced. There could be a revolt.

"You don't realise it but we're in a race between technology and politics, and technologists are winning. They're way ahead.

"They will destroy jobs and disrupt economies before we even react to them and we really should be thinking about that."

He said other ex-Silicon Valley employees had also resigned and were living on land isolated from society because they were equally frightened of what the future held.

Programme host Jamie Bartlett, director of the Centre for the Analysis of Social Media, said: "The tech gods are selling us all a better future but Silicon Valley's promise to build a better world relies on tearing up the world as it is. They call it 'disruption'.

"The mantra of Silicon Valley is that disruption is always good, and through smartphones and digital technology we can create more efficient, more convenient, faster services and everyone wins from that.

"But behind that beautifully designed app or that slick platform there's a quite brutal form of capitalism unfolding and it's leaving some of the poorest people in society behind.

"There's a risk Silicon Valley's promise to build a better world could inflict a nightmare future on millions of us.

"The big secret in Silicon Valley is that the next wave of disruption could tear apart the way capitalism works, and as a result the way we live our lives could be utterly transformed. "

Artificial intelligence pioneer Jeremy Howard said: "People aren't scared enough.
"They're saying 'Don't worry about it, there will always be more jobs'.

"And it's founded on this purely historical thing of there has been a revolution before, it was called the Industrial Revolution, and after it there were still enough jobs, therefore this new, totally different, totally unrelated revolution will also have enough jobs.

"It's a ludicrously short-sighted, meaningless argument which incredibly smart people are making."

He said if society did nothing, a "tiny class of society" would own "all of the capital and all of the data and everybody else adds no economic value, is despised by the class that has things because they're worthless" creating "massive social unrest".

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-universal-basic-income-alaska-2017-7

 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
This is entirely why I think people should be learning programming languages and computer science. What will happen is that some sectors might become obsolete, but technology doesn't actually operate by itself and this is evidenced by how many jobs are projected in technology fields. Technology isn't even the enemy. The enemy is created when one person has the knowledge, and the other doesn't have this knowledge and has to depend on this person for their basic needs.

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest" (Benjamin Franklin)

So I agree with everything in the article except for living in the woods. I think getting out of Silicon Valley is for the best, but not becoming reclusive. If technology is how this all can take place, then technology is essentially our weapon. Gaining technology skills is like learning to use a gun in a modern world, which I realize is a very dramatic metaphor.

However, it is hard to remove yeast. If enough people were gaining these skills, it would be difficult to pull the wool over all of their eyes. Not that I like virtual reality or some technologies, but jobs maintaining software will increase as technology increases. All of these websites and software products in all of our devices and everything. All of these things require a manual user to test and update their level of usefulness on a continuous basis.

This won't change even with different development methods. Even without a testing department, this will only mean that the developers are doing their own testing. Someone still has to test and maintain these products even at Facebook. Testing and maintaining Facebook is not an automated process and they use some very rapid software development techniques.

According to a Canadian Business, the position of software engineer increased by 54% from 2008 to 2014.
"if you’re intrigued by the idea of working on applications that millions of people could potentially use, then you’ll want to take a look at the growing group of software engineers who are researching, designing, evaluating, integrating and maintaining software applications, technical environments, operating systems (you can thank these guys for all those Apple iOS updates), embedded software, information warehouses and telecommunications software in both the private and public sectors." http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/best-jobs/2015-software-engineer/

It is really just as much of a problem for people to sit around and do nothing thinking that things shouldn't change because of how it will affect them. Things like this have been happening for the last 100 years. These changes are happening quicker, but people not wanting to learn to adapt is going to contribute to any potential demise that could come because of changing technologies.
 

Fl-Fr-Fa

Established
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
309
This is entirely why I think people should be learning programming languages and computer science. What will happen is that some sectors might become obsolete, but technology doesn't actually operate by itself and this is evidenced by how many jobs are projected in technology fields. Technology isn't even the enemy. The enemy is created when one person has the knowledge, and the other doesn't have this knowledge and has to depend on this person for their basic needs.

"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest" (Benjamin Franklin)

So I agree with everything in the article except for living in the woods. I think getting out of Silicon Valley is for the best, but not becoming reclusive. If technology is how this all can take place, then technology is essentially our weapon. Gaining technology skills is like learning to use a gun in a modern world, which I realize is a very dramatic metaphor.

However, it is hard to remove yeast. If enough people were gaining these skills, it would be difficult to pull the wool over all of their eyes. Not that I like virtual reality or some technologies, but jobs maintaining software will increase as technology increases. All of these websites and software products in all of our devices and everything. All of these things require a manual user to test and update their level of usefulness on a continuous basis.

This won't change even with different development methods. Even without a testing department, this will only mean that the developers are doing their own testing. Someone still has to test and maintain these products even at Facebook. Testing and maintaining Facebook is not an automated process and they use some very rapid software development techniques.

According to a Canadian Business, the position of software engineer increased by 54% from 2008 to 2014.
"if you’re intrigued by the idea of working on applications that millions of people could potentially use, then you’ll want to take a look at the growing group of software engineers who are researching, designing, evaluating, integrating and maintaining software applications, technical environments, operating systems (you can thank these guys for all those Apple iOS updates), embedded software, information warehouses and telecommunications software in both the private and public sectors." http://www.canadianbusiness.com/lists-and-rankings/best-jobs/2015-software-engineer/

It is really just as much of a problem for people to sit around and do nothing thinking that things shouldn't change because of how it will affect them. Things like this have been happening for the last 100 years. These changes are happening quicker, but people not wanting to learn to adapt is going to contribute to any potential demise that could come because of changing technologies.
You make some good points - the main one being that technology isn't even the enemy (for me, it is in neutral territory). However ultimately, I can't see "taking on the system" by more people training and being employed in technology because it just perpetuates the problem. I see it the same as those going into politics, to try and make things for the better. You can't move up the ranks unless you play the game - the system is a game. The system has to be removed for the health of society, and I can only see that happening [peacefully] when everyone grows tired of it. Bots are taking over jobs now; how many jobs will be left for humans in the near future? Where will it end?
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
The guy in that article sounds extremely paranoid. He quit his job and fled to the woods because of something that may or may not happen in 30 years lmao.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
You make some good points - the main one being that technology isn't even the enemy (for me, it is in neutral territory). However ultimately, I can't see "taking on the system" by more people training and being employed in technology because it just perpetuates the problem. I see it the same as those going into politics, to try and make things for the better. You can't move up the ranks unless you play the game - the system is a game. The system has to be removed for the health of society, and I can only see that happening [peacefully] when everyone grows tired of it. Bots are taking over jobs now; how many jobs will be left for humans in the near future? Where will it end?
Well, I agree with what you are saying about politics. However, the two are not the same. Learning to program could just as easily be used to create competition for people like YouTube depending on how YouTube's new censorship rules affect the content. Instead of being placed in a position where there is nothing you could do, you could just create another website that hosts user videos.

With politics, there is one path because there aren't two governments, so it is not entirely the same thing because learning computer science skills isn't essentially taking on the system. It is creating competition to the system, which reduces dependence on the system.
The problem with all these software as a service technologies is that we are being trained to be a consumer, which is maybe like trying to domesticate an independent wild animal. We become dependent consumers using all these products that we don't know how to make and are rendered helpless depending on how other people choose to manage them.

In reality, we could just make them ourselves, which isn't the same scenario with politics. To create an equivalent comparison of the two would be like saying if you don't like your government, you can make another one.

Also saying that technology is taking jobs is the same thing as saying any invention since the industrial revolution was leading us to our own demise, although I don't know how many farmers want to give up their tractors and go back to working the land the way they did in the 15th century. Technology is a good thing. It can alleviate a burden, but it is also a skill not a service and we should become familiar with this skill instead of becoming complacent consumers trying to keep jobs as cashiers or whatever else has the potential to be automated in the future.

With any change in the job market like this, even though some jobs will be lost, some jobs will be created by this. It all depends on how motivated people are to gain new skills.
 

Fl-Fr-Fa

Established
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
309
Well, I agree with what you are saying about politics. However, the two are not the same. Learning to program could just as easily be used to create competition for people like YouTube depending on how YouTube's new censorship rules affect the content. Instead of being placed in a position where there is nothing you could do, you could just create another website that hosts user videos.

With politics, there is one path because there aren't two governments, so it is not entirely the same thing because learning computer science skills isn't essentially taking on the system. It is creating competition to the system, which reduces dependence on the system.
The problem with all these software as a service technologies is that we are being trained to be a consumer, which is maybe like trying to domesticate an independent wild animal. We become dependent consumers using all these products that we don't know how to make and are rendered helpless depending on how other people choose to manage them.

In reality, we could just make them ourselves, which isn't the same scenario with politics. To create an equivalent comparison of the two would be like saying if you don't like your government, you can make another one.

Also saying that technology is taking jobs is the same thing as saying any invention since the industrial revolution was leading us to our own demise, although I don't know how many farmers want to give up their tractors and go back to working the land the way they did in the 15th century. Technology is a good thing. It can alleviate a burden, but it is also a skill not a service and we should become familiar with this skill instead of becoming complacent consumers trying to keep jobs as cashiers or whatever else has the potential to be automated in the future.

With any change in the job market like this, even though some jobs will be lost, some jobs will be created by this. It all depends on how motivated people are to gain new skills.
Though I don't know much on this question, I'll ask it anyway: Aren't there over-arching laws in place (or soon to be) which regulate websites, the internet, etc. If that's the case, then there really can't be competition to YouTube, for long anyway, because it will be predetermined as to what content is acceptable for others to see. I can only see us learning technology, just for the purposes of reaching others for a limited time. Like the VC website here, we can't expect it to be up for very long into the future. Even if there isn't specific legislation yet in this area, existing laws can always be used to set a precedent for almost anything.

I see the technology aspect as part of the whole system (politics included). It's used to control the masses (as you say, to make us needy, dependent consumers) and for propaganda. The small-town farmer has had his woes in keeping up to the system, and basically gets sucked into it (laws/regulations/corporation buy-outs) or has to give it up. In some ways, technology has led to our demise because ethics haven't caught up to how it should be used as a tool. In theory, it would be fine to have "everything" done for us, so we could do more important stuff! Instead of worrying about the world, we can put our noggins to use in whatever is truly beneficial.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
He said if society did nothing, a "tiny class of society" would own "all of the capital and all of the data and everybody else adds no economic value, is despised by the class that has things because they're worthless" creating "massive social unrest".
Let there be unrest!

Destruction is the mother of creation.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
People should already be revolting. But they are so brainwashed and zombified that they will need to have their faces battered with cold water before they will wake up... God is good and the universe will provide us with that cold water. Praise God!
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Though I don't know much on this question, I'll ask it anyway: Aren't there over-arching laws in place (or soon to be) which regulate websites, the internet, etc. If that's the case, then there really can't be competition to YouTube, for long anyway, because it will be predetermined as to what content is acceptable for others to see. I can only see us learning technology, just for the purposes of reaching others for a limited time. Like the VC website here, we can't expect it to be up for very long into the future. Even if there isn't specific legislation yet in this area, existing laws can always be used to set a precedent for almost anything.

I see the technology aspect as part of the whole system (politics included). It's used to control the masses (as you say, to make us needy, dependent consumers) and for propaganda. The small-town farmer has had his woes in keeping up to the system, and basically gets sucked into it (laws/regulations/corporation buy-outs) or has to give it up. In some ways, technology has led to our demise because ethics haven't caught up to how it should be used as a tool. In theory, it would be fine to have "everything" done for us, so we could do more important stuff! Instead of worrying about the world, we can put our noggins to use in whatever is truly beneficial.
Technically, the field of computer science overall has some the most integrity of any field I have ever seen. I think it is all the math that these people spend studying that differentiates itself from other fields. Mathematicians historically are not involved in a great deal of controversy or scandal. So I think a lot of what people think about these professions is based on propaganda. There is possibly more integrity in this profession than in healthcare or politics combined.

Politicians might want to use technology to their advantage and might seek to create laws to do this, but that isn't a reflection of the standards and ethics created within this profession. It is really a worthwhile endeavor for people to consider especially in light of things that you mention create potential threats to our future.

Either way, even if it did only last a limited time, it would be worth it.
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Not like we have much choice ;), but it's still tough going through the birth pangs as it were.
You are correct.

Also,

it is an honor to live at this moment in history. We will witness events that later generations will be reading and debating about. And if we understand that our pain is the price that we pay for this new birth... for this birth of a new world... then pain becomes less painful. Pain and pleasure lose their meaning as we go beyond desires for one of the two and embrace both as the price of... whatever it is that is being bought by our suffering.

What is our suffering going towards the purchase of? I am not entirely sure but I am excited.

I already said that this was coming, as this is already in the Mayan calendar.

In the early 2030's (2032 if I remember correctly), the Mayan calendar will enter 13-Ahau. (before anyone says the Mayan calendar predicted the end of the world in 2012- that was never true- if you actually research it, we merely began a new cycle in 2012- the Mayan calendar is cyclical and does not end)

13-Ahau is very interesting because it marks the end of the established power structure.

It has been hundreds of years since we entered 13-Ahau. The last time we entered 13-Ahau was 1776.
 

Fl-Fr-Fa

Established
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
309
You are correct.

Also,

it is an honor to live at this moment in history. We will witness events that later generations will be reading and debating about. And if we understand that our pain is the price that we pay for this new birth... for this birth of a new world... then pain becomes less painful. Pain and pleasure lose their meaning as we go beyond desires for one of the two and embrace both as the price of... whatever it is that is being bought by our suffering.

What is our suffering going towards the purchase of? I am not entirely sure but I am excited.

I already said that this was coming, as this is already in the Mayan calendar.

In the early 2030's (2032 if I remember correctly), the Mayan calendar will enter 13-Ahau. (before anyone says the Mayan calendar predicted the end of the world in 2012- that was never true- if you actually research it, we merely began a new cycle in 2012- the Mayan calendar is cyclical and does not end)

13-Ahau is very interesting because it marks the end of the established power structure.

It has been hundreds of years since we entered 13-Ahau. The last time we entered 13-Ahau was 1776.
Well, before anyone steps on our toes - maybe make a thread on the Mayan calendar [if we have enough info. collectively as a group for it, I guess]?
At last.gif
 

Etagloc

Superstar
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
5,291
Well, before anyone steps on our toes - maybe make a thread on the Mayan calendar [if we have enough info. collectively as a group for it, I guess]?
View attachment 1191
The Mayan calendar never ended in 2012. That was just a lie made up by people who weren't even Mayan (the Mayans are still around, contrary to what people think- they mostly live in southern Mexico and Guatemala). The cartoon is not remotely true. I am shocked that there was so much hype over the made-up 2012 thing. Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research knows that all that happened was the calendar moving into another cycle. There was no mystery or anything... just New Agers making up lies and trying to sell books.
 

Fl-Fr-Fa

Established
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
309
Software engineering ethics according to the Institute of Electrical Engineers (IEEE) and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

http://www.acm.org/about/se-code
Thanks again for sending this. I TRY not to derail this thread, and might open a thread on "law and its application" or something like that - but admittedly, I don't have detailed legal examples to talk about and only think on the topic from an ethical perspective. Further, Jordan Maxwell to my remembrance, has had some good info. on discussing the meaning of words that we use . . .

A brief side-track hopefully:
With the diddly-squat I know about law - it is an arm of government [which we have to remember, is a corporation; there is the business-corporation, there is the government-corporation which is also very much a business]. Our Western society is purely a corporate world and puts the corporate interest first. I'll just refer to my recent post in another thread on this:
https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-mirco-chips-are-here.1151/#post-48793

It's because of this, that anything talking of "public interest" is questionable in application with any law or code it's referring to. In this Software Engineering Association's code, it sounds very good on some points, but is vague on public interest at times. To be legal and ethical today I know, is a dream right now in today's society and really they are contradictory terms, as the former tries to rein in the outward, and the latter speaks more to philosophy. I wish there was at least one person on the forum here who could speak to legal issues and their application in their work experience or having examples for back-up.

But I'll say that back when, I was told that a contract had to have these points present to make it legal:
- all terms had to be listed and defined
- all terms had to be understood by all parties affected
- all terms had to be accepted by all parties affected
- all terms and their application in the total text of the contract had to be signed on the dotted line by ALL parties affected to make it legal
This seems to be confirmed by: http://thelawdictionary.org/article/parts-of-a-legal-contract/
[this has basically told me that our legal systems are not legal, as not all parties affected have been consulted nor their agreement obtained directly (e.g. this touches on our political systems with supposed "representation" as well . . .)].

SO ANYTHING using our legal system as its foundation is automatically questionable in my mind, no matter the possible sincerity of intent of those involved in writing codes and legislation; and yes, the legal system is all we have for now in obtaining needed justice . . . for now]

Government today is telling us and enforcing what is "ethical", which is not only wrong but impossible, and we know some of these standards are questionable anyway.

Back to the topic!, I wonder how many engineers connected with this above-mentioned Organization are working at say, Facebook or Google. They are huge data-mining groups and interestingly, it's coming out more in the open now (as many conspiracy theorists have guessed years ago) as to what these companies' intentions are [for marketing purposes and worse, "public security"]. I am very sure that many, if not most engineers have high, ethical standards in their own right, but what the boss-man (or really, government) says --> goes, and I also wonder how many of them are able to opt out of a task, or ultimately get fired [with whatever excuses given] because of wanting to be ethical.

I do remain skeptical Rainerann on this issue unfortunately :), but appreciate your passing this on.
 
Top