Socialism Helps Prevent Obesity

[Loren Pechtel]

What little is being published in the field strongly suggests that the sort of creativity required to develop new algorithms to solve computational problems, and to answer complex diagnostic questions, is exactly the kind of thing that is being developed. Look at IBM's Watson, for example - it's being deployed as an expert system in medical diagnostics, so surely you can't imagine that it couldn't do the kinds of troubleshooting currently done by software engineers?

Watson is doing nothing creative.

As a game show contestant it dug up defined facts.

As for the medical system--the main part of the practice of medicine is not creative. It's complex but determinate--and that's all Watson is doing. The creative aspect of medicine is figuring out the cases that don't fit the pigeonholes (note that many doctors aren't good at this, either--those of us who don't fit the pigeonholes all too often encounter the assumption that if it doesn't if it's not real) and figuring out what to do when the stock answer doesn't work.

Take an article I was just reading about the Rout 91 shootings. The hospital with most of the victims (the closest one) had more patients that needed ventilators than it had ventilators. What would Watson do? Nothing. What did the head doc of the emergency department do? Find two patients that needed the same settings, put them next to each other, put a Y in the air tube and double the flow rate setting.

By your definition, that human doctor was not doing anything creative either.

What did that doctor create? He just applied some (perhaps apparently disparate) elements of his existing knowledge, and combined than in a way that resolved the problem. Which is exactly what all 'creative' technological solutions entail.

Ultimately there's nothing special about human brains - if a brain can do it, then a computer can be made that can also do it.

No, he was being creative. Watson can only regurgitate, not create. Now he might be able to suggest using one ventilator on two patients but not then. There were also things like throwing out the safety protocols and having the nurses walk around with a bunch of succinylcholine in their pockets because getting it a vial at a time from the system was too slow. (It's commonly used in severe trauma cases but they normally keep careful tabs on it because it will stop the patient's breathing--mistaken administration is likely to kill.)

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I fully agree--I know I spend a lot more time creating logic as opposed to the details of actually making that logic work than I used to. What I was saying is that all the improvements that I've seen (and I've seen a lot--most of my early stuff was in Z80 assembly) do absolutely nothing about taking away that creative core.

Of course they don't; That stuff is stuff you have no need to see, so you won't know about it until it replaces you.

The improvements you see are those things that help you to do the other parts of your job; But the fact that you never see things that are designed to do ALL of your job is to be expected, and is not evidence that such things do not exist.

A gas lamp lighter might well see a new ladder design, or a better kind of match; But there's no reason whatsoever that he should ever see an electric streetlight, until such time as his job has already become obsolete. The people developing electric streetlights didn't need gas lamp lighters on their team; But the guys inventing a better match or improved ladder needed some gas lamp lighters to test their designs before they could be rolled out to all the lamp lighters, and they needed input from those lamp lighters about what changes to these things might be helpful.

Your first inkling that a machine can do the creative parts of your job will be when your work starts to dry up because your customers are going elsewhere.

While he wouldn't have seen an electric streetlight he would have known of electric light if he was paying attention to the technology.

Actually that's not true. It assumes the new technology is implemented everywhere instantaneously.

The story of Edison creating the electric bulb starts with a dispute he was having with the gas company. When it was announced that he was working on the idea, it did not exist yet but sent the stock of the gas companies in a nosedive. When it was invented, it was introduced first in the areas that could afford to update their infrastructure, so lamplighters were still needed outside those areas. It took time for electric lighting to spread everywhere.

This is perfectly analogous to how the car didn't destroy the horse carriage industry. Until Ford introduced mass production of automobiles they were very much a rich mans toy, and so many people still relied on the horse. Then even after the Model T, they were still introduced in areas where one could buy fuel, where there were roads that were of sufficient quality for driving, where customers could get to the car lot, etc. It took time for the entire country to be covered with asphalt.

 

[LordKiran]

Of course they don't; That stuff is stuff you have no need to see, so you won't know about it until it replaces you.

The improvements you see are those things that help you to do the other parts of your job; But the fact that you never see things that are designed to do ALL of your job is to be expected, and is not evidence that such things do not exist.

A gas lamp lighter might well see a new ladder design, or a better kind of match; But there's no reason whatsoever that he should ever see an electric streetlight, until such time as his job has already become obsolete. The people developing electric streetlights didn't need gas lamp lighters on their team; But the guys inventing a better match or improved ladder needed some gas lamp lighters to test their designs before they could be rolled out to all the lamp lighters, and they needed input from those lamp lighters about what changes to these things might be helpful.

Your first inkling that a machine can do the creative parts of your job will be when your work starts to dry up because your customers are going elsewhere.

While he wouldn't have seen an electric streetlight he would have known of electric light if he was paying attention to the technology.

Actually that's not true. It assumes the new technology is implemented everywhere instantaneously.

The story of Edison creating the electric bulb starts with a dispute he was having with the gas company. When it was announced that he was working on the idea, it did not exist yet but sent the stock of the gas companies in a nosedive. When it was invented, it was introduced first in the areas that could afford to update their infrastructure, so lamplighters were still needed outside those areas. It took time for electric lighting to spread everywhere.

This is perfectly analogous to how the car didn't destroy the horse carriage industry. Until Ford introduced mass production of automobiles they were very much a rich mans toy, and so many people still relied on the horse. Then even after the Model T, they were still introduced in areas where one could buy fuel, where there were roads that were of sufficient quality for driving, where customers could get to the car lot, etc. It took time for the entire country to be covered with asphalt.

It took a few decades at most. The precise time frame we're discussing now. Which is why some foresight would be a good idea now.

 

[LordKiran]

Watson is doing nothing creative.

As a game show contestant it dug up defined facts.

As for the medical system--the main part of the practice of medicine is not creative. It's complex but determinate--and that's all Watson is doing. The creative aspect of medicine is figuring out the cases that don't fit the pigeonholes (note that many doctors aren't good at this, either--those of us who don't fit the pigeonholes all too often encounter the assumption that if it doesn't if it's not real) and figuring out what to do when the stock answer doesn't work.

Take an article I was just reading about the Rout 91 shootings. The hospital with most of the victims (the closest one) had more patients that needed ventilators than it had ventilators. What would Watson do? Nothing. What did the head doc of the emergency department do? Find two patients that needed the same settings, put them next to each other, put a Y in the air tube and double the flow rate setting.

By your definition, that human doctor was not doing anything creative either.

What did that doctor create? He just applied some (perhaps apparently disparate) elements of his existing knowledge, and combined than in a way that resolved the problem. Which is exactly what all 'creative' technological solutions entail.

Ultimately there's nothing special about human brains - if a brain can do it, then a computer can be made that can also do it.

No, he was being creative. Watson can only regurgitate, not create. Now he might be able to suggest using one ventilator on two patients but not then. There were also things like throwing out the safety protocols and having the nurses walk around with a bunch of succinylcholine in their pockets because getting it a vial at a time from the system was too slow. (It's commonly used in severe trauma cases but they normally keep careful tabs on it because it will stop the patient's breathing--mistaken administration is likely to kill.)

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92tn67YDXg0[/YOUTUBE] Here's a bot that learned to beat one of the world's best dota players over a few months by just playing itself thousands of times. It taught itself to be the best at a videogame far more complicated than pong.

Imagine a thousand watsons interconnected across a thousand hospitals, each capable of learning from the input of all the others, each capable of remembering you and your medical history no matter where you go, capable of providing moment-to-moment updates to your internal medical file, such that your medical care improves with each interaction.

 

[sharon45]

Because the creative tasks are the ones at risk this time. Ai can create works of art indistinct from man made examples and will only get better with time. When I say ai and automation can replace man in every aspect of society I have good reasons to believe that.

I think that creativity should be about the hardest to replace with automation, especially entirely.

Don't be so hard on yourself;

Hey, somebody has to, since no one else will.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Do you think you can do anything without taxes?

If you want a decent society somebody has to pay for it.

The most just tax system is a highly progressive tax system. So those that will be hurt the least by the taxes will pay the most.

Quick riddle - why don't ancoms ever get told to move to Somalia?
Because they are the only ones who think they are anarchists.

You couldn't describe what Anarchism is if your life depended on it.

It is hard to describe things that don't exist, like God or AnarchoCommunism.