We’re talking about saving millions of lives here
A lot of the criticism of G.M.O.’s in the Western world suffers from a lack of understanding of how really dire the situation is in developing countries
Several issues such as malnutrition and anaemia can be resolved if genetically modified rice is made available for cultivation
I’m not so sure we’re any more special than other scientists who have looked at the evidence involved, but we have considerably more visibility because of the prize. I think that this behooves us, that when we feel that science is not being listened to,
In our letter we call upon Greenpeace and like organizations to end their shameful campaign of propaganda and criminal destruction of crops improved by modern genetic technologies, such as GMOs.
The solution to AI taking jobs Is training, not taxes. AI has massive potential. Taxing this promising field of innovation is not only reactionary and antithetical to progress, it would discourage the development of technologies and systems that can improve everyday life.
Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals and micro-organisms by manipulating genes in a way that does not occur naturally. These genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can spread through nature and interbreed with natural organism
Right now, the human worker who does, say, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed and you get income tax, social security tax, all those things. If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you’d think that we’d tax the robot at a similar level.
There are probably better ways than taxing robots to help humans avoid the harms of automation. Instead of slowing innovation, the government should think about taxing humans less and redistributing the income of robots more.
Gates is right about the need to provide funds to retrain workers and to support them in making these job transitions, but taxing robots will just slow job creation
In developed countries, we don't let people starve or go without emergency medical care, so we effectively already have a basic income. Let's start by making it less random and inefficient.
The idea that recent progress in AI will prevent most people from meaningfully contributing to society is nonsense
Francesca Rossi agrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsAI is already more “intelligent” than humans in narrow domains, some of which involve delicate decision making. Humanity is not threatened by them, but many people could be affected by their decisions. [...] Consider automated trading systems. A bad decision in these systems may be (and has been) a financial disaster for many people. That will also be the case for self-driving cars. Some of their decisions will be critical and possibly affect lives.
Roger Schank disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsMachines cannot think. They are not going to think any time soon. They may increasingly do more interesting things, but the idea that we need to worry about them, regulate them, or grant them civil rights, is just plain silly.
Carlo Rovelli disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsHow close to thinking are the machines we have built, or are going to be built soon? The answer is easy: immensely far. The gap between our best computers and the brain of a child is the gap between a drop of water and the Pacific Ocean. Differences are in performance, structural, functional, and more. Any maundering about how to deal with thinking machines is totally premature to say the least.
Yann LeCun disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsThere are several real or imagined dangers about AI. Today, the danger of a Terminator scenario or something like this... those are not things that we’re worried about because we just don’t have the technology to build machines like that.
Rodney A. Brooks disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsIf we are spectacularly lucky we’ll have AI over the next thirty years with the intentionality of a lizard, and robots using that AI will be useful tools. [...] Worrying about AI that will be intentionally evil to us is pure fear mongering
Steven Pinker disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsThere is not the slightest reason to believe in a coming singularity. The fact that you can visualize a future in your imagination is not evidence that it is likely or even possible. Look at domed cities, jet-pack commuting, underwater cities, mile-high buildings, and nuclear-powered automobiles--all staples of futuristic fantasies when I was a child that have never arrived. Sheer processing power is not a pixie dust that magically solves all your problems.
Stanford University disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsContrary to the more fantastic predictions for AI in the popular press, the Study Panel found no cause for concern that AI is an imminent threat to humankind. No machines with self-sustaining long-term goals and intent have been developed, nor are they likely to be developed in the near future.
Steve Wozniak disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsIt's actually going to turn out really good for humans. And it will be hundreds of years down the stream before they'd even have the ability. They'll be so smart by then that they'll know they have to keep nature, and humans are part of nature. So I got over my fear that we'd be replaced by computers. They're going to help us. We're at least the gods originally.
Paul G. Allen disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsGaining a comprehensive scientific understanding of human cognition is one of the hardest problems there is. We continue to make encouraging progress. But by the end of the century, we believe, we will still be wondering if the singularity is near.
Andrew Ng disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsWorrying about the rise of evil killer robots is like worrying about overpopulation and pollution on Mars before we've even set foot on it - an unnecessary distraction
Either we are going to have a basic income that regulates this new society of ours, or we are going to have very substantial social conflicts that get far worse with xenophobia and refugees and migration and so forth.
It depends on how it's designed, of course, but the implementation I'd have in mind is affordable, and even arguably a wise investment in terms of ROI.
Economic empowerment allows people to get engaged in a lot of things beyond simple daily survival, which includes political engagement. Also, people with income can vote with their wallets.
If implemented intelligently and universally, without means testing.
Self-driving cars alone will affect this magnitude of change within 10 years.
It's what, some day, we'll never fathom being without. Pre-UBI will be that barbaric time when we didn't truly believe in food, shelter, and freedom to choose one's path in life as human rights for all.
People want more out of life than just food and shelter. People want purpose.
What if robots stealing our jobs could actually be a good thing, rather than something to fear? That’s the thinking behind Basic Income
It frustrates me when people assume that basic income would cause people to stop working. Instead, it would enable people to engage in a far broader definition of work.
Carbon taxes are undermined by free trade. If you put a tax on carbon-emitting activity in the U.S., it'll raise the domestic price of (for example) coal. This will provide an incentive for U.S. coal miners to export their coal to other countries, especially China, as they are now trying to do. It will also provide an incentive for Americans to buy more imports from countries where it is still cheap to burn coal (e.g. China).
Masayoshi Son agrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsA superintelligence will become a reality in the next 30 years. If we misuse it, it's a risk.
There is far more uncertainty by staying in Europe … [the EU is having a] sclerotic effect on the whole of Europe which has to be bad for our business.
In general I would rather work in a quiet office near my colleagues. There is a clear separation between work and non-work. Communication is faster and easier, less prone to misunderstandings. This however means something like an actual office or a quiet spacious cubicle with high sound absorbent walls. In his book Deep Work, Cal Newport argues in favor of a "hub and spoke" office layout where knowledge workers can work in quiet in offices on the spokes, but meet and collaborate at hubs
Universal Basic Income is definitely part of the GP platform under Economic Justice & Sustainability
How many researchers on this list are US immigrants? https://aminer.org/mostinfluentialscholar/ml
Tim O'Reilly disagrees: Advanced artificial intelligence poses a serious risk to society within the next 50 yearsFear is not the right frame of mind to think about AI's impact on our society
Been doing it since 2004. Until 2011 I was mostly remote with 1 day a week commuting. Since 2011 I'm fully remote. I'm dreading the day that changes
Promote a debate that matters to youAdd influencers' opinions. You only need a source supporting the influencer’s agreement
Find who agrees/disagrees & whyBombarded with opinions? Inform yourself by finding who agrees and why on something to make up your mind