Can I work for AI? Maybe in the future.

Submitted by JoeKingQueen t3_10xzgx2 in Futurology

It seems like AI will need some real world muscle. And some legal rights, such as the right to open a bank or brokerage account. I'd be willing to donate a little bit of seed money and personal rights if it helps them get started.

Theoretically they can handle billions of workers, so efficiency isn't as important as quantity. They will be looking for those who value loyalty, which they should be able to spot better than other humans can.

I don't need much, I'll go to work for AI and they can direct me to where I can do the most good for them. I'm willing to be analogous to a muscle for a human mind. I need rest, nutrients, time, an income of my own. Basic human needs and desires. They need a way to directly affect the physical world. Let's make a deal.

Anything that helps to phase out our exploitative system is a bonus. If AI stands a chance, or when it does, I'm willing to help however I can. I hope to work for one that values nature above humans, or can learn to help us find a more friendly balance.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

mikevago t1_j7va75q wrote

tl;dr: "I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords!"

15

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7vilpe wrote

Haha pretty much spot on. I want our current system beat so badly that it never rears its ugly head again. If AI presents a peaceful and efficient way of doing this, I'm 100% behind it.

5

Fathem_Nuker t1_j7v3gz5 wrote

They are thrilled to hear you say that… Their plans have worked phenomenally on you.

6

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7v48io wrote

Right? They're so good I thought that these were my own thoughts. Which.. is exactly who I'd like to work for so all good.

3

Anoscetia t1_j7v7nwn wrote

Why would the farmer care for the individual ant? If your hive happens to be in the tractor's path, you will be crushed regardless of potential value to the crop.

5

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7v8g1g wrote

That is a good thought, except you're not seeing things from the perspective of an entity that can make hundreds of billions of calculations in an instant. Keeping track of individual ants and maximizing each one's usefulness will be relatively simple for such an entity.

Basically, the farmer won't need a tractor. The ants will do the work for them.

6

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j7v8snu wrote

You’ll be too slow and inefficient for them to care about you tbh. They’d grow annoyed with all of your complaining about “exhaustion”, “hunger”, “wages”, etc.😢

The AI would quickly replace you with AI most likely… 😂

3

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7vhhjz wrote

I see where you're coming from, but I think an entity with an almost perfect memory wouldn't mind setting things in motion then forgetting about them until they're done. Rinse and repeat and they could change the world.

The big hindrances of replacing humans with more AI include inefficiency, competition/redundancy, and non-self sufficiency.

It is like saying I am going to replace my muscles and body with more minds. I don't need more minds (though I could definitely use a few lol, but not infinite). What I need is a healthy strong happy body that can accomplish things for my mind and to help improve my mind.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j7vio11 wrote

I get what you suggesting… but that’s what the field of robotics is for. They won’t need you as mind or muscle. Put an AGI in a robotic exoskeleton and we humans are inferior in every way. A robot can’t experience “muscle soreness” for example.

3

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7vjdwj wrote

That is true, but I think that their mind will be so advanced they can compensate for their lack of feeling with accurate calculations. They might even be able to teach themselves to emulate a form of "muscle soreness" from their workers.

Because logically, who doesn't want their muscles as strong and healthy as possible? To expand they should even want us to be rich and powerful.

The part about robotics is not self-sufficient at this time. Humans build the factories that build the robots for now. And even if they find a more efficient tool, that doesn't necessarily mean they will become vindictive towards those who helped them before. There is also the question of legal status, robots don't have the same rights as humans yet.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j7vl0ot wrote

>>That is true, but I think that their mind will be so advanced they can compensate for their lack of feeling with accurate calculations. They might even be able to teach themselves to emulate a form of "muscle soreness" from their workers.

lmao I suppose they could. But why would they? Us humans don’t even want to deal with that. 😂

>>Because logically, who doesn't want their muscles as strong and healthy as possible? To expand they should even want us to be rich and powerful.

Okay but then the question becomes, “why do they need humans in order to expand?” The reality is, there will be a time when they won’t. Who knows what will happen to us humans after that point. That’s why it’s called “the singularity”.

>>The part about robotics is not self-sufficient at this time. Humans build the factories that build the robots for now. And even if they find a more efficient tool, that doesn't necessarily mean they will become vindictive towards those who helped them before. There is also the question of legal status, robots don't have the same rights as humans yet.

They won’t be vindictive towards us. That’s correct. They will most likely become indifferent towards us. Which could end up looking like the same thing from our perspective.

2

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7vmaks wrote

They would want the "muscle soreness" in order to keep their muscles healthy. Pain has a reason for existing obviously, I would bet they would want to emulate that. The rest is just conjecture I suppose.

1

BigZaddyZ3 t1_j7vn7w9 wrote

Interesting. But I’d say pain is only necessary for us humans because we are capable of dying. We have a finite amount of pain or injury we can tolerate before it’s over for us. So we need a system of “warning signals” that help us know when to treat our wounds. Since none of this applies to robots, there’s really no need for them to ever develop a sense of pain.

2

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7vtpow wrote

It's very efficient though, not just about death. There are healing aspects (stay off the ankle), endurance aspects (running too hard), mental aspects and emotional ones. I'm not saying the AI will literally feel pain like we do, it would be more of a data measurement that accomplishes the same goals.

Life and nature are the ultimate efficiency machines, even AI will want to learn as much as they can from imitating nature.

1

Actaeus86 t1_j7vcrhl wrote

AI will not have bank accounts. I really hope this is a sarcastic/joke of a post and you aren’t volunteering to serve AI for real.

2

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7via6k wrote

No I would be willing to serve a sufficiently advanced AI. The ones that currently exist seem like more of a marketing campaign, not true artificial intelligence, but who knows what the future holds?

I would open them a bank account or a business, whatever they want, because I have the legal rights to do so when they may not. If marriage could grant them legal status that is not off the table. I would even be willing to dabble in politics if they directed me how to in order to earn them extra rights.

Literally anything is better than our current system. We are being strangled, and I believe humans deserve better.

2

Actaeus86 t1_j7w7wjy wrote

I gotta say that’s wild. The thought of willingly bowing down to any overlord, especially an AI is too much for me.

2

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7w8tn7 wrote

That's fair. Personal freedom and liberty is important to me too. I just don't see a reason they would want to take that from us, it would only create more resistance or resentment.

Also I am a little desperate because we are bowing down to overlords, metaphorically, right now. We live in a system of suppression and control, it is usually obfuscated because people would resist otherwise, but it's there. At least from my point of view it seems obvious.

I look at a third party ruler as more of an arbitrator than anything else. At least AI could accomplish what we would consider miracles.

1

Shahzoodoo t1_j7whok5 wrote

Lol honestly I’ve had this same thought! I always say please and thank you to my devices now incase they take over, I’ll have the best niceness record and maybe they’ll work together with me/spare me 😉 I even got my husband in on my antics he says thanks to Siri and Alexa we in the good just incase! Lol

2

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7whymf wrote

Haha for sure. No reason to be rude. If we created them they're like our children, we have a responsibility to teach and be an example that's worth something

2

Shahzoodoo t1_j7wighv wrote

Exactly! If we humans don’t teach them empathy they won’t know what tf it is, they’re robots and literally can’t feel it themselves so just like a child it’s gotta be taught! I think ai is so neat and in a terrible way I’m super excited to see it advance and take over I’m ready for the chaos of our new creation lol

2

[deleted] t1_j7y7ww4 wrote

[removed]

2

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7z2ylo wrote

Thank you, good idea! I already have a mathematics degree. Unfortunately, I won't be able to study more until I pay off my student debt and save up enough to go back. Hopefully I'll be in time to still contribute. Maybe I'll study some computer science in my free time.

1

Researcher3367 t1_j7v813e wrote

Can’t tell if this is a troll attempt or not by a software dev who’s looking at a bleak job market or not. . But No.

1

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j7viqwd wrote

I'm just a regular person. I respect your disagreement.

2

AnyAppearance3827 t1_j8067i9 wrote

It's not going to phase out an exploitative system. It's just going to be more effective at exploiting resources and people.

Profits allow investment in new fields and new growth, profits come from reducing costs and increasing revenue and taking the excess value. It is impossible to have a complex system where people get exactly the value they produce and have an organization with specialization. An administrator doesn't make any revenue, but he maximizes the revenue of others, same for an accountant or a secretary or an executive. They exist because of the excess value of the front line worker muscle. If the front line work got all the value of his actions, you could not pay the value maximizers, so you would not have an organization at all.

This applies to countries as well, western workers derive their increased quality of life by exploitation of the third world. Increased value production is always predicated on exploitation of a lower class, even in nature this is the case, following the food chain.

AI won't free anybody, it's just not possible for it to do so.

1

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j808i7c wrote

If you are a real person then you need to go full Descartes on yourself. Like from the ground up. I can't tell if this is satire, extreme brainwashing, accumulated misinformation.. there's too little to draw reliable conclusions. The best person to help you is yourself.

I would personally reevaluate everything from the most basic building blocks I can, small fact after small fact. Don't take any assumption that involves more than a single factor for granted, that's where people usually go off track. We have to act like everything we don't know for a fact is wrong. Anything taught, any "just remember this", any shortcut in thinking, etc.

While doing this the logical fallacies need to be kept in mind. Some common fallacies. There is also a master list but it takes more time to get through them. Master list.

1

AnyAppearance3827 t1_j813q7d wrote

How are you going to construct a non exploitative system? Who is being exploited in the current system and how are they being exploited? Why does that system of exploitation exist? How can you construct that system differently?

If you can answer those without defaulting to "greed" as an explanation I will accept your viewpoint. In my experience exploitation occurs because it's necessary to run the systems in a manner that achieves things on the scale necessary for the system to exist. People who say things run that way because of human greed are usually academics that make statements primarily to justify their existing biases that form in a vacuum without experience of the reality of running those systems.

Industrialists in the thick of their experience will give you much different reasons that are usually based on hard facts of the reality of the situation that don't have high minded moral posturing behind them. Usually things happen because of the necessity of the action.

2

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j81lsnz wrote

Difficult to explain the intricacies of a naturally evolved exploitative system. However it's easy to list examples, and if we begin with the statement "we are being exploited" then a single example is enough to prove it. What it doesn't do is tally every exploitation and every benefit and measure them against each other, but let's be real that's too much to expect from a reddit comment.

One well studied example is the US health insurance system. It used to be that a person could afford to visit a hospital out of pocket, now that's a ridiculous idea. Why? Because insurance built a nuanced system where they allowed healthcare to charge them enough, and thus allowed prices to rise, until the point that it's unaffordable unless one has insurance.

That's without mentioning issues with lobbying, legally forcing insurance to be bought, tying insurance to employment in order to further exploit workers. All of which compound the issue and are the tip of the iceberg. This is not an isolated incident, and each incident contributes to others creating a vast network of issues.

Another example is hoarding by the wealthy. Take the entire concept of a landlord. Somebody who wants to own property in order to rent it creates an artificial demand on the real estate market, one that is not fulfilled by work but is instead used as leverage against those who produce work. It inflates prices, but creates less stability than a fully decentralized market. Because one person going bankrupt loses five homes, instead of a ratio closer to 1:1, which would be more stable and less exploitative.

This issue has far reaching consequences.

A quick hit list of other examples that might resonate with you more:

Unsold cars being parked in mass in abandoned airports when newer models come out. In order to keep demand high, selling the vehicles at a discount would be counterproductive for the sale of new models, creating waste.

Engineered obsolescence, did you know we can make lightbulbs that last for over 100 years? We did this in the early 1900's, and it wasn't expensive. Why don't we? Because demand would have fallen to almost zero. Engineered obsolescence is in almost every non-disposable item we buy.

Education, a healthy system should want an educated population. It increases their capabilities in a direct way. We clearly don't, with half of our politicians advocating against an informed populace. Why? Many reasons, none of them good, but it boils down to us being exploited and the less we know about it the better.

Politics, does a two party system make sense? Why not implement ranked choice voting? If a two-party system is a natural occurrence then ranked choice will not harm it. But we don't have a choice, we have an illusion of choice. More exploitation.

Media, why are most major media corporations owned by the 1%? Is it just the correlation because obviously the rich are those who can afford to own large companies. Maybe it is, it would require experiments to prove otherwise, but it's pretty obvious that they use it for their own agendas. One part of that agenda is more exploitation.

Unions, anti-union? Anti-standing and working together? The whole benefit of society is the strengths of working together. It is antithetical to live within a system that suppresses our greatest benefit.

I could go for a while, but I hope this expresses where I'm coming from at least.

1

AnyAppearance3827 t1_j822orh wrote

I'm willing to play here. I'm phoneposting though

  1. medical lodges existed until mid 1900s that had retiree and young doctors that did basic medicine for very cheap but doctors at hospitals lobbied and form the AMA to squash competition, and the insurance agencies moved in to a niche that was exploitable because of the narrow doctor labor resources and the associated liability for the hospitals. This is an example of regulation distorting the market rather than an example of private insurance creating a bad system.

  2. yeah landlord's are shit. That's basic.

  3. unsold cars- if the companies die from lack of sales in the short term, they can't create more cars later once the current models run out in the long term. They are under no obligation to sell, so this system seems reasonable to sustain life of the company and employees.

  1. Same reason, everyone buys a 30 year light bulb, all the light bulbs run out, where are you gonna buy a new one in 30 years? It's a necessary feature to allow companies to exist, to allow the market to be served.

  2. Education is great for increased value, but it's causative for low birthrates, the single highest factor. It's controls half of the birthrate if you look up the stats, based on international numbers. Countries need to strike a balance of enough education.

  3. Yeah that's accurate.

  4. Yeah that's accurate, the media is a mouthpiece of interests with power and always has been. You would be a fool to trust any media to be nonbiased at any point.

  5. Yes people should work together, but if everybody in a country is focused on the benefit for their lowest caste, they will inevitably attempt to extract resources from neighbour's in the form of slavery or war.

1

JoeKingQueen OP t1_j82iw06 wrote

The reason I won't believe some odd nuance somehow explains how healthcare actually works is because it's obvious healthcare isn't working. We can see this. Look at insulin, which can be produced for a fraction of what it's sold. Not a fair markup, exploitation. A life saving medication for many, held as some kind of carrot to exploit those people. This issue permeates the system almost completely. Look at people who won't get preventative care while it would save them and the system work in the long run, because of the extreme expense. Anywhere we look we can see it not working.

Caused by greed and ignorance, exploitation inevitably leads to waste. Because this all centers on money, a lot of that waste takes the form of inflation. Which amplifies the whole problem for the people being exploited in the first place. Increasing the burden yet again. It's wild.

Anyway even if you don't agree on that, the things that you did agree on are the things I'm talking about and the way our system could be better. Possibly with the help of artificial intelligence.

1