Uncategorized

There are two problems: each based on a critical assumption.

The short term problem: IF computers can do MOST of the work that MOST humans are capable of doing, and can do it better than MOST humans are capable, then what happens to human job seekers? How does society hold together?

The long-term problem: Computers keep getting more capable of intelligent behavior. It is likely (short of global disaster) that this trend will continue. IF so, then AT SOME point they will become more intelligent than any human. IF that happens, then how do we control something much smarter than we are?

The first problem is well explained by this video.

Humans Need Not Apply – YouTube

In the past, it took a lot of engineering and a lot of capital to produce a machine that could perform better than a human. Later, the capital costs went down, but it took a lot of programming.

But the new generation of systems don’t need to be programmed or engineered by humans. They learn and can adapt.

In some cases the learning needs to be supervised–so there’s still a person in the loop. But more and more it’s unsupervised–show the system the inputs and the outputs and IT figures out what to do.

Most humans are capable of learning things with supervision. Only a few can figure out how to do something that they have not been taught to do.  So more and more human jobs are at risk.

In the past, humans who lost their jobs to technology were able to find better jobs for which humans were qualified and machines were not capable. But the set of jobs that machines can’t do, is rapidly shrinking.

The long-term problem is more daunting. It’s explained in this TED Talk:

Can we build an AI without losing control

Now, this is often caricatured, as I have here, as a fear that armies of malicious robots will attack us. But that isn’t the most likely scenario. It’s not that our machines will become spontaneously malevolent. The concern is really that we will build machines that are so much more competent than we are that the slightest divergence between their goals and our own could destroy us.

3:34Just think about how we relate to ants. We don’t hate them. We don’t go out of our way to harm them. In fact, sometimes we take pains not to harm them. We step over them on the sidewalk. But whenever their presence seriously conflicts with one of our goals, let’s say when constructing a building like this one, we annihilate them without a qualm. The concern is that we will one day build machines that, whether they’re conscious or not, could treat us with similar disregard.

So are these assumptions valid?

I would argue that the first problem (not enough jobs for job-seekers) is already here–but hidden.

And the second (computer systems smarter than humans) is inevitable, and close enough that we should be thinking seriously about it.

During last week’s session, we spent a bit of time on the above topic, but agreed that we weren’t in a position to discuss this complex topic “off the cuff,” without the benefit of some background reading.

I offered to provide some evidence of why I’m concerned about the fiscal status of the various social programs, and backup to my statement that, without changing the programs I am concerned that they are not sustainable—in the sense that young workers contributing today cannot reasonably expect to receive benefits comparable to what today’s eligible recipients get.

Here is some reading for the holidays (remember, the Library is closed for the next two Mondays–and we have another topic already selected for our January 9, 2017 meeting). Continue reading “Fiscal Status of US Social Programs—The Long Version”

Topics originally proposed in this post were:

• How do we feel about private collections (i.e., privately owned and not available to the public)?
• Under what circumstances should public funds be used to “support the arts?” Or should art intended for public display rely on private “patrons?”
• Should public support be conditioned, in some way, on content? (I’m thinking of some of the controversial shows that have been (?) displayed in public spaces.)
• How do we evaluate (and quantify) the benefit of art on society, etc. (the general welfare)?

We considered pushing off discussion because Marion and Sarah were absent, but decided to start this week and continue to next week.

Maine Arts commission budget level at around $700K per year over 10 year period.

In percentage of state budget, it’s 0.1%

Rand Study link to BL post here proposed we need more people to appreciate and value art.

National Assembly of State Art Agencies reports that 28 states have “percent for arts” programs. Policy statement from the Assembly, with historical timeline.  Most are 1% of capital budgets for public projects. Here’s is Maine’ percent program.

National Endowment for the Arts description of how Art is funded in the US.

Funding over time (1970-2012) from the report:

Nervous Nellie’s Jams and Jellies

The valuation of art. article in Wikipedia.

“Google Arts and Culture is a pro bono project by Google. It features content from over 1000 leading museums and archives who have partnered with the Google Cultural Institute to bring the world’s treasures online.”

They also do hi-rez images of photos. Here’s a detail from “Stary Night”

If you click on the image you’ll go to the full image, and you can then zoom out to see something more this:

And finally, this

This Google Art experiment “Curator’s Table”

“Use the Curator’s table to discover new insights and connections between artworks. Inspired by curators around the world, we applied the principle of laying out prints on a table when planning an exhibition, to our virtual gallery. Assets are animated in realtime. You can search objects, styles and artists, and view them in one 3D space.”

TED Talk explaining the project.

Beyond Labels is very valuable, but paying to participate would vastly change the experience. We are subsidized by virtue of our taxes and donations paying for the library. If we charged admission, would people attend? I’m inclined to think no, because of the way it would change the experience.

Some part of the value of art is like that.  High in value, but difficult to quantify.

Friendship is similarly valuable, but its value is not directly convertible to dollars. If you pay for friendship is it friendship anymore?

“How much should people be compelled to pay for art that you don’t like.”

Deciding these things is an organic process — like the way the body allocates resources between brain, muscles, digestive system, and so on.

Not discussed

Banksy is a street artist who has created a very profitable business from public art provided for free (and in opposition to government).  This is his website.

Very interesting movie “Exit through the gift shop” (Wikipedia, Clip on Youtube) describes how some street art is made, and some has been monetized.