Seems like technological unemployment is something people are afraid of, even though humans have spent most of their history working toward that goal. Robots will not "take" our jobs, they will "free" us from working.
Eventually, thanks to robots and AI, everything will be so cheap to produce that governments will be able to deliver basic income to everyone.
I have just been writing to whoever I could think of, including policy, Premier and Cabinet Departments in Government. I look forward to technological unemployment, but I know what a perpetual crisis it would be for all of we people on welfare if the Government hadn't even thought about it, much less prepared for it.
Kind regards,
Elizabeth Jane
The Hon. Jenny Macklin, M.P.
Shadow Minister for Disability Reform,
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Ms Macklin,
I am writing to you about TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT. Why is it not debated in the election campaign by either the Labor Party or the Liberal National Party?
I have sent the following media release (below) to most MP's and Senators in Australia, to newspapers in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, U.K., and the U.S. and to political parties. There has been just one response, just one reaction. I received an e-mailed letter from Senator Eric Abetz, but he made no mention of technological unemployment, so I concluded that this was a stock reply and that the Senator had zero information about technological unemployment. Therefore the Liberal National Party has no information about technological unemployment in their policies. And so, this country's leaders continue their election campaign with absolutely no regard to perhaps the most important issue and social change ever, and which will begin within the next three years regardless of whether Labor or the Liberal National Party will be in power.
I want this issue to be raised during the election campaign. I don't want to be living in a Third World country in a few years time just because the political parties in this country haven't updated their policies to include technological unemployment, and because the relevant Government Departments have not included technological unemployment in their economic forecasts for the Government and Opposition.
In A.I. machine-learning terms, since Google DeepMind's AlphaGo beat a Go grandmaster earlier this year, at least 10 years before it was thought possible, we have been living in the year 2026. Therefore, all of the predictions for what we will be seeing with regard to technological unemployment prior to 2016 that refer to 2025-2030 apply to us now: We will therefore be seeing the fruits of advanced machine-learning the likes of Google's DeepMind very soon.
Foxconn just permanently laid off 60,000 workers. They will be replaced with robots. That is nothing compared to what is to come. Driverless taxis made by nuTonomy, a software company, will begin operating in Singapore late this year. Affected by this A.I. technology will be a huge 28% of the workforce, whose jobs involve driving cars or trucks. No doubt fully driverless cars will arrive in Australia in 2017 after they are proven successful in Singapore. Driverless trucks are already operating 24 hours a day on Australian mining sites. The technology is almost ready, only lack of legislation that accepts driverless vehicles is holding them back.
Call centre employees will also lose their jobs when "Amelia", an IPsoft project is introduced for commercial use. The computer program is currently in beta testing. When it is introduced it has been reported that Amelia will take the jobs of 250 million people, world-wide.
Please, ask the relevant Australian Government Departments if they have taken technological unemployment into account in their Budget forward estimates! Don't bother! They have overlooked it. Yet machine learning is improving exponentially, and soon we shall have very high unemployment. The Government is not preparing for what is to come, and considering how much time they spend arguing about a revenue vs. a spending problem, they will take years to agree on how to finance a Universal Basic Income. The answer to the debate over revenue vs. spending will soon be clearly resolved by world events in A.I. taking jobs: There is a REVENUE SHORTAGE! Now please read my "media release".
3 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 15.5 ms ] threadI have just been writing to whoever I could think of, including policy, Premier and Cabinet Departments in Government. I look forward to technological unemployment, but I know what a perpetual crisis it would be for all of we people on welfare if the Government hadn't even thought about it, much less prepared for it.
Kind regards,
Elizabeth Jane
The Hon. Jenny Macklin, M.P. Shadow Minister for Disability Reform, House of Representatives Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Ms Macklin,
I am writing to you about TECHNOLOGICAL UNEMPLOYMENT. Why is it not debated in the election campaign by either the Labor Party or the Liberal National Party?
I have sent the following media release (below) to most MP's and Senators in Australia, to newspapers in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, U.K., and the U.S. and to political parties. There has been just one response, just one reaction. I received an e-mailed letter from Senator Eric Abetz, but he made no mention of technological unemployment, so I concluded that this was a stock reply and that the Senator had zero information about technological unemployment. Therefore the Liberal National Party has no information about technological unemployment in their policies. And so, this country's leaders continue their election campaign with absolutely no regard to perhaps the most important issue and social change ever, and which will begin within the next three years regardless of whether Labor or the Liberal National Party will be in power.
I want this issue to be raised during the election campaign. I don't want to be living in a Third World country in a few years time just because the political parties in this country haven't updated their policies to include technological unemployment, and because the relevant Government Departments have not included technological unemployment in their economic forecasts for the Government and Opposition.
In A.I. machine-learning terms, since Google DeepMind's AlphaGo beat a Go grandmaster earlier this year, at least 10 years before it was thought possible, we have been living in the year 2026. Therefore, all of the predictions for what we will be seeing with regard to technological unemployment prior to 2016 that refer to 2025-2030 apply to us now: We will therefore be seeing the fruits of advanced machine-learning the likes of Google's DeepMind very soon.
Foxconn just permanently laid off 60,000 workers. They will be replaced with robots. That is nothing compared to what is to come. Driverless taxis made by nuTonomy, a software company, will begin operating in Singapore late this year. Affected by this A.I. technology will be a huge 28% of the workforce, whose jobs involve driving cars or trucks. No doubt fully driverless cars will arrive in Australia in 2017 after they are proven successful in Singapore. Driverless trucks are already operating 24 hours a day on Australian mining sites. The technology is almost ready, only lack of legislation that accepts driverless vehicles is holding them back.
Call centre employees will also lose their jobs when "Amelia", an IPsoft project is introduced for commercial use. The computer program is currently in beta testing. When it is introduced it has been reported that Amelia will take the jobs of 250 million people, world-wide.
Please, ask the relevant Australian Government Departments if they have taken technological unemployment into account in their Budget forward estimates! Don't bother! They have overlooked it. Yet machine learning is improving exponentially, and soon we shall have very high unemployment. The Government is not preparing for what is to come, and considering how much time they spend arguing about a revenue vs. a spending problem, they will take years to agree on how to finance a Universal Basic Income. The answer to the debate over revenue vs. spending will soon be clearly resolved by world events in A.I. taking jobs: There is a REVENUE SHORTAGE! Now please read my "media release".
...