Deus Ex Machina, according to Wikipedia, is “A term that has evolved to mean a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly resolved by the inspired and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability or object.” This deus ex machina device has many criticisms attached to it, mainly referring to it as inartistic, too convenient, and overly simplistic. On the other hand, champions of the device say that it opens up ideological and artistic possibilities.
The 2015 movie “Ex Machina” was a study in how far Artificial Intellegence could go. It was the story of a female robot that was designed to not only equal man’s intellegence, but to create her own unique personality with all the trappings of a man (or woman). Although critically acclaimed, the movie seemed much more like science fiction than a look into the future. But was it?
Last week, IBM and Sony announced a 300 terabyte ribbon the size of two decks of cards and affordable to the point that it could be used in practical applications immediately. To put this into some perspective, the human brain is estimated to use between 10 and a 100 terabytes of memory. Just one of these units could store over 300 million books. Those books could range from Greek tragedies, william Shakespeare, Mark Twain to Harry Potter, and all that is needed is an algorithm based on compare and contrast and critical thought derived from these books, to teach a machine to think for itself. A robot capable of thought, could imitate anger, love, deceit and compassion. Not in the purest sense, but through the computer’s ability to artificially replicate from data much like a parrot does with words. It is not a question of can this be done, but rather how soon it will be done. And, when it’s created, it will be faster and more accurate than our own brains.
Artificial Intellegence in the realm of science and literature is nothing new. Whether it’s Maria in the 1927 movie Metropolis to Arnold’s “Terminator” or the Karel Capek’s 1921 play R.U.R. to Issac Asimov’s “I Robot,” man has had a romantic fascination with our mechanical counterparts. But, never before has it comes this close to reality. Although A.I. may not look like Ava in “Ex Machina,” the reality is they will soon be able to perform any task that has long been exclusive to man. How soon is soon? No one knows for sure, but everyday we see more and more people being replaced by robots. In Manufacturing alone, 88% of jobs lost since 2000 have not been lost to outsourcing, but rather to technology (mostly robots). With the introduction of auto-drive vehicles, jobs in driving (taxis, trucks, heavy machinery used in construction and infrastructure and even busses and trains are soon to become obsolete. And, we have all seen the endless commercials about IBM’s Watson, who solves problems from grape production to basketball players evaluations. The jury has returned and we are at jeopardy of losing our superiority to machines.
So, now that I’ve scared the bejesus out of you, what does this all mean? We can hate it, but can we stop it from happening? And most important, if (or when) it does happen, what will happen to us? All very good questions.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
No one has a crystal ball when it comes to this. Estimates are all over the table when it comes to when this will happen, but most everyone in the scientific and economic worlds agree, it will happen. An American businessman recently was given a tour of a factory in China. The production was being done completely by robots, with a small skeleton crew to maintain and operate them. The businessman asked his tour guide, why would you do this? After all, you have the largest work force in the world. Your labor is cheap, and your people are happy to have any job. The tour guide replied that it was the practical thing to do. Robots don’t fight amongst each other, they don’t get sick, don’t take vacations, when they do it right once, they do it right every time, they can work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and you don’t even have to turn on the lights.
So, if China has made this move despite the ramifications, how long before we do the same thing?
CAN WE STOP IT?
In December of last year, President Trump negotiated a deal with United Technology to keep their Carrier plant in Indiana. In the world of carrots and sticks, the carrot was a $7 million tax incentive and the stick was a threat of loss defense contracts. The move save 700 jobs, but Greg Hayes, the CEO of UT announced a few days later that that money would be invested in automation to drive the cost down, so they could continue to be competitive, suggesting that those jobs saved were jobs of yesterday.
But the manufacturing sector won’t be the only place jobs will be lost. The legal industry is at risk with computers doing the job of young lawyers. There will be a $100 robot to replace farm workers, Kiosks in the fast food industry that will replace counter workers and next year a device called the Tricorder X will be released (named after the device used in Star Trek) that will analyze 34 biomarkers that can identify nearly any disease, saying goodbye to the medical technicians industry and fundamentally the demise of your primary physician. And, even the investment industry is at peril. Simply watch CNBC any day of the week. That floor of the stock exchange, which use to be filled with thousands of men shoving each other aside to get the first crack at a hot stock, is now nothing more than a TV set for the media outlets.
As I mentioned, no one has a crystal ball that will tell you when all this will happen. Man has always fought automation when jobs were at risk, but in every case, man has lost the fight.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO US?
Of course, reports over the last few years have run amuck with devastating predictions of jobs lost to technology. When it happens is less important than what do we do to begin the transition to this new world. But, our current administration doesn’t seem to be concerned. Just a few months ago, when asked to comment about this, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said “It’s not even on our radar screen…. 50-100 more years.” If he’s right, why did the World Economic Forum predict that 65% of children today will be trained for jobs that don’t even exist today? The problem may not be no jobs, the problem may be jobs no one is qualified to do.
A RANDUMB THAWT
When Elon Musk was recently asked about Artificial Intellegence, he said: “I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I had to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that.
Artificial Intellegence is like a snowball. It has grown exponentially over the last two centuries. Today it may be growing faster than the solutions for this doomsday scenario can be thought of. We can no longer afford to wait till the night before to address it. Whether it happens in our lifetime or our children’s, it will happen and we are not prepared. It can be the protagonist in man’s story, or it can be the Deus Ex Machina. It’s up to us to ask the right questions. What are the jobs of the future? Will there be enough of those jobs to balance those displaced by AI? If there isn’t enough jobs for everyone, what are the solutions? Do we begin to take control of our population and how fast can we reasonably do it, or do we provide for those, who by no fault of their own, have no place in this new economy?
This is not a game of craps. We can’t afford to just throw the dice and wait to see if it hits seven or eleven, because it might hit two, four or twelve. The effects of waiting will trickle up and our economy could face disastrous consequences. Not just to the poor and middle class, but everyone. If the middle class has no money, who will buy the products? And, if no one can afford a new car, tv, or even food, what happens to those companies?
There have been some ideas on how to initially help. One, was given recently by Bill Gates, when he suggested we tax robots and use that money as a safety net and to train those displaced by A.I. for these new jobs. Also, the discussion of a basic living wage is being discussed by both progressive and conservative economist and politicians. In fact, Switzerland recently voted down a bill to do just that. Call it a first step, too early, or a bad idea, but give them credit for stepping up to the plate. We can’t afford to stick our heads in the sand on the battle between man and his intelligent creations.
Einstein once said: “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I know the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.” We need to be good scouts and “Be prepared.”
Think about it…
(A special thanks to Jim Terpstra for his help in the research for this article)