How far would you accept technology?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

How far would you accept technology?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

This broad question is meant for you personally as well as the community you reside in.

First everybody accepts technology to a certain extent (even though some try to kid themselves by denying the fact). So to what extent is technology acceptable? To replace people at their jobs? To vote at elections? To direct our lives? To replace drivers? To make life and death decisions (artificial intelligence).

I've raised some of the important issues and you may have some of your own. You may answer "It depends." So
is this on your mind?

PhilX
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by PauloL »

.




Asinus autem utitur qui potest non utilis machina.

Is there a place to discuss the utility of technology? How could we discuss such a thing in this very forum without technology?

Technology replaces people at their jobs? What people? Should we have kept a feudal society to keep people's jobs?

Less radically, conceding that limited technology is acceptable: should we have stopped telephone's evolution to keep telephone exchanges live with scores of telephonists?

A broader question might be: can technology ever replace ALL jobs?




.
commonsense
Posts: 2886
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by commonsense »

PauloL wrote: Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:57 pm
A broader question might be: can technology ever replace ALL jobs?

I cannot imagine a job that could not ever be replaced by so-called intelligent machines. However, as technology replaces existing jobs, new jobs become available. Take telemedicine for example, a technology where physicians in their offices can treat patients in their homes. As a result, there will be a decreasing need for medical office staff, however there would be more job opportunities for healthcare workers in patients' homes.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by PauloL »

x......................................................................................................................x




.......... People developing new technologies to cut jobs will never lose their job.
.......... Judges, policemen, teachers, dentists, most doctors, lawyers, sex workers
.......... and many others will never lose jobs.
.......... After all technology created in the last 100 years, it's not the cause of unempleyment yet.
.......... Telemedicine concentrates some specialists but you need doctors in situ.






x......................................................................................................................x
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

PauloL wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:07 am x......................................................................................................................x




.......... People developing new technologies to cut jobs will never lose their job.
.......... Judges, policemen, teachers, dentists, most doctors, lawyers, sex workers
.......... and many others will never lose jobs.
.......... After all technology created in the last 100 years, it's not the cause of unempleyment yet.
.......... Telemedicine concentrates some specialists but you need doctors in situ.






x......................................................................................................................x
With respect to the gals in Reno, NV, I've read they're up in arms about sexbots.

PhilX 🇺🇸
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by PauloL »

x......................................................................................................................x




.......... 4 Real?
.......... Now your thread makes sense.





x......................................................................................................................x
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

PauloL wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:20 am x......................................................................................................................x




.......... 4 Real?
.......... Now your thread makes sense.





x......................................................................................................................x
Google sexbots

PhilX 🇺🇸
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by PauloL »

x......................................................................................................................x





.......... True.





x......................................................................................................................x
commonsense
Posts: 2886
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by commonsense »

PauloL wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:07 am People developing new technologies to cut jobs will never lose their job.
I see your point. What if the developers created an app that creates apps? This is not meant to be taken as a facetious statement. I believe there are already programs that write code. I think it’s possible to use these kinds of programs as components of future technologies. You may want to argue that this is an impossibility, but I would still ask what if…
PauloL wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:07 am Judges, policemen, teachers, dentists, most doctors, lawyers, sex workers and many others will never lose jobs.
I can appreciate that these occupations require skills, and most require knowledge and critical thinking as well. However, skills can be performed by an appropriately programmed robot; knowledge can be stored in databases; critical thinking could be accomplished by AI.

I don’t dispute that my inability to imagine an irreplaceable job may be due to a limited imagination. Perhaps we need to consider the specific tasks, knowledge and decisions that a given profession involves. Taking judges as an example, I would point out that sentencing rules are algorithms that judges, at least U.S. federal judges, must follow. There may still be plenty of room for independent thinking in many professions as of yet, however It is possible that expert systems will replace that kind of thinking in the future.
PauloL wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:07 am After all technology created in the last 100 years, it's not the cause of unemployment yet.

Absolutely correct. In fact, technology creates new jobs to replace older ones.
PauloL wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:07 am Telemedicine concentrates some specialists but you need doctors in situ.
I’d like to be sure that I understand you are saying about doctors on site. My understanding of telemedicine is that a physician sits in front of a computer in her office. At the patient’s location, a trained technician connects and positions a camera, checks vital signs (blood pressure, pulse etc.), connects a stethoscope or other medical equipment to a computer, positions the stethoscope on the patient’s body, performs non-surgical interventions (e.g. performing a throat swab) and completes documentation as needed.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by thedoc »

As far as I could throw it.
User avatar
PauloL
Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: Lisbon, Portugal.

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by PauloL »

commonsense wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:07 pm
PauloL wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 2:07 am
True.
As to Telemedicine, when I said in situ I meant at the place where patient is, on the spot, or at bedside if you prefer.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Technology should be made with the intent to improve our lives, not replace them. Sometimes those two things overlap, like the inevitable increase of automation within the job market. My objection to that is that we shouldn't hold technology back based on a fear of not being able to properly adapt. That's something which needs to happen naturally.

But it wouldn't serve us to make a machine that can vote in elections, for example.
commonsense
Posts: 2886
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by commonsense »

thedoc wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:51 pm As far as I could throw it.
What makes you say that?
commonsense
Posts: 2886
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by commonsense »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:23 am Technology should be made with the intent to improve our lives, not replace them. Sometimes those two things overlap, like the inevitable increase of automation within the job market. My objection to that is that we shouldn't hold technology back based on a fear of not being able to properly adapt. That's something which needs to happen naturally.

But it wouldn't serve us to make a machine that can vote in elections, for example.
Perhaps the fear isn't so much over whether we can adapt as it is that human beings could become subservient to machines. It would be ideal if intelligent machines only improved our lives, but what if they did not? Do we have reason to fear technology?

Aside from the job market, aren't there other ways that technology affects us, say socially or culturally and possibly mentally or physically, for the good or for the bad?

I think the fear could be assuaged if futurists had authority over what technology should be permitted, but then who will be the futurists and what would prevent an underground movement from working on the forbidden technology?
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: How far would you accept technology?

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

commonsense wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 1:54 pm
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:23 am Technology should be made with the intent to improve our lives, not replace them. Sometimes those two things overlap, like the inevitable increase of automation within the job market. My objection to that is that we shouldn't hold technology back based on a fear of not being able to properly adapt. That's something which needs to happen naturally.

But it wouldn't serve us to make a machine that can vote in elections, for example.
Perhaps the fear isn't so much over whether we can adapt as it is that human beings could become subservient to machines. It would be ideal if intelligent machines only improved our lives, but what if they did not? Do we have reason to fear technology?
Why would humans create a machine designed to makes humans subservient? I've always thought that the fear of an AI taking over is pretty unintuitive. Mostly because there are a million other things that would probably wipe out the human race first. But even something like a self-learning AI has the restrictions of learning only what we want it to.
Post Reply