• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

EconTalk on the Technological Singularity

January 20, 2011 by Mark Linsenmayer 7 Comments

Our blogger and guest podcaster Daniel referred in response to my previous post that EconTalk with host Russ Roberts (pictured) and guest Robin Hanson of George Mason University did an episode on "The Technological Singularity."

The idea here is that at a few points in history, there's been a technological breakthrough that fundamentally transformed how people can live, which in turn led to a massive growth in population, creation of wealth, and a fairly rapid overturning of much of previous culture. The last time this happened was the industrial revolution, and before that, the development of farming. Hanson theorizes that the same would happen with development of sufficient artificial intelligence that most work could be pushed off onto robots: not only manufacturing jobs like at present, but services like cutting hair and driving taxis and, ultimately, product design. At this point, yes, the whole point would be sucked out of the job system as it currently exists, and we'd be forced to figure out some alternate way of structuring our lives.

Hanson doesn't think this would be so unprecedented: there are people now who are rich enough that they don't have to work for money, but yet still tend to fill their time very productively. There's also a hint that there would have to be some redistribution of wealth to help out those whose only current asset is their ability to sell their labor, but, really, if wealth is so abundant, surely we can work that out and in any case we don't have to worry about that yet. (This is what I'm reading into Hanson, anyway.)

However, much of the rest of the podcast is devoted to talking about how difficult it is to create artificial intelligence: how it's not just a matter of us getting fast enough hardware to accommodate it, but that there's a fundamental conceptual gap right now. Hubert Dreyfus has a lot to say about this.

So while the podcast begins with this idea (at least this was my impression) that the singularity is inevitable: the well-circulated thought that technology increases exponentially, such that very rapidly our culture is going to become unrecognizable, but then the discussion makes it sound like no, such a revolution is dependent upon a technological advance that is actually pretty unlikely, i.e. this is all just idle speculation.

I'll write more about Bergmann's "New Work," soon, but there's nothing in it that necessitates having intelligent machines, and, just to head off this point that people jumped to in the comments to my last points, it doesn't entail socialism or any change in our ostensible system of government, or that the government even be the key player in enacting a solution. As this EconTalk podcast demonstrates, it's possible that the change could be entirely on the model of the current rise of the Internet, which did require some regulations and things to get it going and keep it "neutral," but which was mostly engendered by academia (and the military? I'm not actually so solid on my history of the Internet) and pushed into major use by forces both capitalistic and... well... volunteerism of the same sort that makes this podcast/blog and a million others like it run strong. This is just an analogy of course, but the point is that history gives us a number of models of social change, and any way that does not require Congress to do anything is going to be much easier.

-Mark Linsenmayer

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Misc. Philosophical Musings, Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts

Comments

  1. Daniel Horne says

    January 20, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    I know this is a side issue, but for the curious, a 1997 debate between Dreyfus and Dan Dennett on AI’s viability can be found here:
    http://www.slate.com/id/3650/entry/23905/

    Reply
  2. Douglas says

    January 21, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Okay, is it wrong or does it simply tell you too much about me that Robin Hanson gives me a cold chill in my soul? (And his personal page lists his GRE scores…what?) He’s worked for DARPA too. (And yes, nearly all tech starts out serving a military master and then trickles down to the commodities market and popular entertainment.)

    Why do folks want to make these kinds of things reality? They strike me as utterly “inhuman” as I conceive of what it means to be “me”.

    Reply
  3. Wesley says

    January 21, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    Robin Hannson is an odd duck. He has a list on his site of odd things he may or may not belive in (cannt remember how to find it) and he is a strong proponent of perdiction markets.

    The argument is that when people have money on the line and vote on a decison, the end result will be a more acuurate perdiction of any policy or result for that matter.

    Now before you start mentioning the current problmes in the financial world, please not that a much longer argument exists for why those problmes do not undermine the concept of perdiction markets. I do not have time to go through it so here is the conclusion: the government causes financial markets to work improperly. Sorry I cannot be more explicative but I would start to ramble if I did.

    But here is a site that actualy facilitates perdiction markets: http://www.intrade.com/

    Reply
  4. Rinky says

    January 24, 2011 at 4:56 am

    I’ll admit that I’ve not listened to the EconTalk podcast that you’re discussing here, but this:

    “there would have to be some redistribution of wealth to help out those whose only current asset is their ability to sell their labor, but, really, if wealth is so abundant, surely we can work that out”

    gave me a strong feeling that you might like to cover Marx in a future episode of PEL. A very basic understanding of Marx has certainly helped my understanding of the reasons why I’m obliged to sell my labour to feed my family.

    I’m a recent subscriber to PEL, just on the Tractatus episodes. I love the selections you’ve made so far, maybe Marx is already on your list. Keep up the good work.
    –R.

    Reply
  5. Seth Paskin says

    January 24, 2011 at 8:13 am

    Thanks Rinky, he’s on the list. Not sure yet how we are going to tackle Economics, but it’s looking more and more like we will hit Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments and then Wealth of Nations before Marx.
    –seth

    Reply
  6. Dennis says

    January 24, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    “…any way that does not require Congress to do anything is going to be much easier.”

    I was a bit startled to read that Mark L. ended this post on a conservative note! Will we hear a sympathetic note in future podcasts about the Tea Party?

    😉

    Srsly, Econ Talk also has podcasts on Hayek and Mises that bracket this one, I would recommend them. Marx, to be sure, would be a podcast of interest. PEL would flush him out better than Melvyn Bragg did in his In Our Time BBC radio/podcast (still, a good one). I’d like to suggest Hayek to you guys even though I’m sure he wouldn’t much of a priority for PEL. Perhaps you guys will eventually drill down(up?) to him someday as PEL gets long in the tooth.

    Long Live PEL!

    Reply
  7. alexis says

    January 27, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    that was way cool.. 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Randy Strader on Ep. 309: Wittgenstein On Certainty (Part Two)
  • Wes Alwan on PEL Nightcap February 2023
  • Kunal on Why Don’t We Like Idealism?
  • Ronald Cogen on Ep. 311: Understanding the Dao De Jing (Part One)
  • Brian Grindel on PEL Nightcap February 2023

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy ·Â Terms of Use ·Â Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in