Jack Ma (of Alibaba) says "Say "No" to Manufacturing...

Milland · Sep 20, 2017

Jack Ma: We need to stop training our kids for manufacturing jobs - Sep. 2, 217

This is curious. In some ways I agree with him, as we can see the advent of true AI allowing almost all of the manufacturing arts to be computer/robotized.

On the other hand, I know a damn few people for whom manufacturing is their "art", and they would not have rewarding lives without the ability to "make something". It also plays into creative design, as knowing how to get from an idea to an existing product is frequently how someone will start when designing something new (that might actually work).

So in my mind, this could happen, but it would be a tragic mistake for humanity. And I will note that Jack Ma, a Chinese national, does not address the huge role manufacturing plays in Defense. It would be convenient for most of the world to give up on having factories and metal mills, allowing China (most likely) to become the machine shop to the World.

In that case, who do we buy from when under threat? How does one tie-in the current expansionist nature of China with Mr. Ma's concept?

Paging SeaMoss...

ewlsey · Sep 20, 2017

Man I just don't know. I've been told that AI is just around the corner since the Terminator back in 1984 (I wasn't even alive). 34ish years later and it's still "just around the corner".

I'm thinking that this whole AI thing is turning out to be a crap load harder than anyone ever realized. We're at a point where automation can do a lot of tasks in really high volume production. Setting up automation for even medium production volumes is still very far from economical.

SteveBausch · Sep 20, 2017

Who teaches the system?
Microsoft's Tay became an anti-semetic, government hating conspiracy theorist in the first day of introduction.

Twitter taught Microsoft’s AI chatbot to be a racist asshole in less than a day - The Verge

Monarchist · Sep 20, 2017

ewlsey said:
Man I just don't know. I've been told that AI is just around the corner since the Terminator back in 1984 (I wasn't even alive). 34ish years later and it's still "just around the corner".

I'm thinking that this whole AI thing is turning out to be a crap load harder than anyone ever realized. We're at a point where automation can do a lot of tasks in really high volume production. Setting up automation for even medium production volumes is still very far from economical.

So far ... as to "AI", we are just NOT getting all that much "Artificial Intelligence", anyway.

We seem to be getting more Artificial (pick which one has impacted you most recently):

Idiocy,

Irrelevance,

Ignorance,

Indifference,

Incompetence,

Impudence,

Intrusiveness.... etc.

A long-departed friend always referred to 'puters as "High speed idiots".

Can't much fault him, so far.

Ziggy2 · Sep 20, 2017

I see and hear a lot about how AI is progressing but I think that there is a very serious underestimation of what is required for true intelligence.

Roger Penrose, a rather prominent British mathematician brings the issue up often in his writings, usually at least a chapter or more in each of his books.

It is one thing to use human intelligence to create rule sets that the AI engine will follow and build upon but it is quite another thing to be able to have an AI engine create its own rule sets from nothing.

I think the crux of the problem lies in the philosophical question if man has a soul or not. If man does have a soul, then true AI would probably not be attainable but if man does not have a soul than we are then only mere biochemical processing units and AI would be eventually doable though difficult. Probably achievable only about 10 years after we solve the controlled fusion problem.

Monarchist · Sep 20, 2017

Ziggy2 said:
I see and hear a lot about how AI is progressing but I think that there is a very serious underestimation of what is required for true intelligence.

Roger Penrose, a rather prominent British mathematician brings the issue up often in his writings, usually at least a chapter or more in each of his books.

It is one thing to use human intelligence to create rule sets that the AI engine will follow and build upon but it is quite another thing to be able to have an AI engine create its own rule sets from nothing.

Ah, nooo. That has become the problem, actually. As we even approach "AI" the "self optimization" parts want to do things their OWN way.

Y'know little kids, and the "terrible two's"?

Similar situations are arising with advanced AI systems.

They had to shut a system down recently because it invented its own language.

To a 'puter? "Humanity" as has been said arredy, is no more than a skin-disease on a ball of dirt. It isn't about whether WE "have a soul". Rather, whether a machine-system will ever have even "mercy", let alone a priority for (other) human lives over its own that it cannot find a way to circumvent.

And why would we expect it to have THAT?

We do not.

SeaMoss · Sep 21, 2017

Milland said:
Paging SeaMoss...

Just a speech, I think. Important People are always making Important Speeches. And Jack got there by graft and corruption anyway so what does he know ?

ewlsey said:
Man I just don't know. I've been told that AI is just around the corner since the Terminator back in 1984 (I wasn't even alive). 34ish years later and it's still "just around the corner".

Exactly. How many robot companies were there in the mid-seventies ? Fifteen or twenty ? Now how many ? Two or three ? It was The Wave of the Future.

Turns out people are way cheaper and more versatile.

PeteM · Sep 21, 2017

I'm not so dismissive of AI and automation as most, above. Also not so sure that service jobs are so easily going to pick up the slack.

DaVinci made hundreds of sketches of flying machines . . . and in subsequent centuries so many tried and failed it became a joke, easily dismissed. Point being that predictions of technology failing are correct, right up until they're not.

Pick a profession -- and many are already able to be automated. Could be the future holds service jobs for emptying bed pans (maybe hard for a robot to do) but jobs ranging from truck driver and sales clerk to medical doctor (at least the diagnosis part) are on the edge of being automated.

We're making lots of old folks and others in need of services. But what's somewhat unique is that today's aging baby boomers are relatively affluent - they got cheap but good educations, found jobs, bought homes, even had pensions. Not so clear our kids will even be able to afford someone to clean their homes, mow their lawns, empty their bedpans.

Gordon B. Clarke · Sep 21, 2017

Milland said:
Jack Ma: We need to stop training our kids for manufacturing jobs - Sep. 2, 217

This is curious. In some ways I agree with him, as we can see the advent of true AI allowing almost all of the manufacturing arts to be computer/robotized.

On the other hand, I know a damn few people for whom manufacturing is their "art", and they would not have rewarding lives without the ability to "make something". It also plays into creative design, as knowing how to get from an idea to an existing product is frequently how someone will start when designing something new (that might actually work).

So in my mind, this could happen, but it would be a tragic mistake for humanity. And I will note that Jack Ma, a Chinese national, does not address the huge role manufacturing plays in Defense. It would be convenient for most of the world to give up on having factories and metal mills, allowing China (most likely) to become the machine shop to the World.

In that case, who do we buy from when under threat? How does one tie-in the current expansionist nature of China with Mr. Ma's concept?

Paging SeaMoss...

Since man discovered fire and the wheel (and before then too) whatever needs to be done gets done to make life easier. I don't really find anything disturbing in the article. The Industrial Revolution was a giant step forward and what humans come up with just keeps on accelerating. A kid today probably can't imagine life without a computer or smart phone.

I bought a robot lawnmower in spring and wish that had been invented years ago LOL When I was an apprentice and years after that CNC didn't exist. Until the day comes robots can think for themselves, hopefully to our benefit, then man will continue to have to do manual labour until a method is found to replace it.

Won't happen in any of our lifetimes. We have though already started.

An innovation leader — Study in Denmark

I'm a firm believer in Darwinism. Evolve or perish.

Shawnrs · Sep 21, 2017

I wonder when we can start replacing politicians with AI?

bryan_machine · Sep 21, 2017

here's the more substantive issue - focusing 100% of your attention on the career paths of your parents, neighbors, or heros, might not be a great plan. because the world changes...

a little like black activists pointing out the the NFL and NBA would provide careers to a very few black citizens, while being ordinary doctors, lawyers, engineers, plumbers, and so forth would provide vastly more careers, at what turn out to be higher lifetime net earnings.

in the US today, there's huge emphasis on teaching people to program - I think that's a great idea (duh - i made a career of it) - but there's no way we're all going to do that full time. so "everybody should be a programmer" or "everybody should go into manufacturing" make no more sense than "everybody should go to college" or "everybody should join the navy".

note that i pay no attention at all to Jack Ma...

Gordon B. Clarke · Sep 21, 2017

Shawnrs said:
I wonder when we can start replacing politicians with AI?

I thought we had. It's the "I" in AI that'll take a lot more testing and work.

art.h · Sep 21, 2017

My concern with AI is that any software, program is only as good as the dumbest/ laziest builder/programmer. How many mistakes, disasters can a user afford while the supplier works the bugs out. My computer operating system often gets updates hourly the same with any program/system I use; and while anything that's been done using the inherent problem can be undone, this may not be true in an ongoing AI system. If you have 50hp churning away a glitch is the last thing you need, or a car doing 90, or a plane lined up on a taxi way instead of a runway.

Shawnrs · Sep 22, 2017

art.h said:
My concern with AI is that any software, program is only as good as the dumbest/ laziest builder/programmer. How many mistakes, disasters can a user afford while the supplier works the bugs out. My computer operating system often gets updates hourly the same with any program/system I use; and while anything that's been done using the inherent problem can be undone, this may not be true in an ongoing AI system. If you have 50hp churning away a glitch is the last thing you need, or a car doing 90, or a plane lined up on a taxi way instead of a runway.

a depressed/ hungover/ going through a divorce/ tired employee is not much better

Shawnrs · Sep 22, 2017

Gordon B. Clarke said:
I thought we had. It's the "I" in AI that'll take a lot more testing and work.

The "I" part will be a challenge but maybe we can add a heart to the units.

Toolroomguy · Sep 22, 2017

Monarchist said:
They had to shut a system down recently because it invented its own language.

Interesting, can you direct me to a source with more information?

Philabuster · Sep 22, 2017

Toolroomguy said:
Interesting, can you direct me to a source with more information?

Facebook AI Creates Its Own Language In Creepy Preview Of Our Potential Future

Forbes Welcome

AlexO · Sep 22, 2017

Ziggy2 said:
I see and hear a lot about how AI is progressing but I think that there is a very serious underestimation of what is required for true intelligence.

Roger Penrose, a rather prominent British mathematician brings the issue up often in his writings, usually at least a chapter or more in each of his books.

It is one thing to use human intelligence to create rule sets that the AI engine will follow and build upon but it is quite another thing to be able to have an AI engine create its own rule sets from nothing.

I think the crux of the problem lies in the philosophical question if man has a soul or not. If man does have a soul, then true AI would probably not be attainable but if man does not have a soul than we are then only mere biochemical processing units and AI would be eventually doable though difficult. Probably achievable only about 10 years after we solve the controlled fusion problem.

Feral children.

Gordon B. Clarke · Sep 22, 2017

1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2.A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Three Laws of Robotics - Wikipedia

Modelman · Sep 22, 2017

Gordon B. Clarke said:
1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2.A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Three Laws of Robotics - Wikipedia

Yeah, but when the depressed, tired, and hung over programmer forgets to type in the first two, we're f*cked.

Dennis

Jack Ma (of Alibaba) says "Say "No" to Manufacturing...

Diamond

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Stainless

Diamond

Banned

Diamond

Banned

Stainless

Diamond

Banned

Aluminum

Stainless

Stainless

Cast Iron

Diamond

Banned

Banned

Titanium

Similar threads