Meet Duplex, your new assistant, courtesy of Google

Advances in natural language processing have enabled systems such as Siri, Alexa, Google Assistant or Cortana to be at the service of anyone owning a smartphone or a computer. Still, so far, none of these systems managed to cross the thin dividing line that would make us take them for humans. When we ask Alexa to play music or Siri do dial a telephone number, we know very well that we are talking with a computer and the replies of the systems would remind us, were we to forget that.

It was to be expected that, with the evolution of the technology, this type of interactions would become more and more natural, possibly reaching a point where a computer could impersonate a real human, taking us closer to the vision of Alan Turing, a situation where you cannot tell a human apart from a computer by simply talking to both.

In an event widely reported in the media, at the I/O 2018 conference, Google made a demonstration of Duplex, a system that is able to process and execute requests in specific areas, interacting in a very human way with human operators. While Google states that the system is still under development, and only able to handle very specific situations, you get a feeling that, soon enough, digital assistants will be able to interact with humans without disclosing their artificial nature.  You can read the Google AI blog post here, or just listen to a couple of examples, where Duplex is scheduling a haircut or making a restaurant reservation. Both the speech recognition system and the speech synthesis system, as well as the underlying knowledge base and natural language processing engines, operate flawlessly in these cases, anticipating a widely held premonition that AI systems will soon be replacing humans in many specific tasks.

Photo by Kevin Bhagat on Unsplash

The Second Machine Age

The Second Machine Age, by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, two MIT professors and researchers, offers mostly an economist’s point of view on the consequences of the technological changes that are remaking civilisation.

Although a fair number of chapters is dedicated to the technological innovations that are shaping the first decades of the 21st century, the book is at its best when the economic issues are presented and discussed.

The book is particularly interesting in its treatment of the bounty vs. spread dilema: will economic growth be fast enough to lift everyone’s standard of living, or will increased concentration of wealth lead to such an increase in inequality that many will be left behind?

The chapter that provides evidence on the steady increase in inequality is specially appealing and convincing. While average income, in the US, has been increasing steadily in the last decades, median income (the income of those who are exactly in the middle of the pay scale) has stagnated for several decades, and may even be decreasing in the last few years. For the ones at the bottom at the scale, the situation is much worst now than decades ago.

Abundant evidence of this trend also comes from the analysis of the shares of GDP that are due to wages and to corporate profits. Although these two fractions of GDP have fluctuated somewhat in the last century, there is mounting evidence that the fraction due to corporate profits is now increasing, while the fraction due to wages is decreasing.

All this evidence, put together, leads to the inevitable conclusion that society has to explicitly address the challenges posed by the fourth industrial revolution.

The last chapters are, indeed, dedicated to this issue. The authors do not advocate a universal basic income, but come out in defence of a negative income tax for those whose earnings are below a given level. The mathematics of the proposal are somewhat unclear but, in the end, one thing remains certain: society will have to address the problem of mounting inequality brought in by technology and globalisation.

LIFE 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Max Tegmark’s latest book, LIFE 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, is an enthralling journey into the future, when the developments in artificial intelligence create a new type of lifeform on Earth.

Tegmark proposes to classify life in three stages. Life 1.0, unintelligent life, is able to change its hardware and improve itself only through the very slow and blind process of natural evolution. Single cell organisms, plants and simple animals are in this category. Life 2.0 is also unable to change its hardware (excepto through evolution, as for Life 1.0) but can change its software, stored in the brains, by using previous experience to learn new behaviors. Higher animals and humans, in particular, belong here. Humans can now, up to a limited point, change their hardware (through prosthetics, cellphones, computers and other devices) so they could also be considered now Life 2.1.

Life 3.0 is the new generation of life, which can change both its software and its hardware. The ability to change the computational support (i.e., the physical basis of computation) results from technological advances, which will only accelerate with the advent of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). The book is really about the future of a world where AGI enables humanity to create a whole range of new technologies, and expand new forms of life through the cosmos.

The riveting prelude, The Tale of the Omega Team, is the story of the group of people who “created” the first intelligence explosion on planet Earth makes this a “hard-to-put-down” book.  The rest of the book goes through the consequences of this intelligence explosion, a phenomenon the author believes will undoubtedly take place, sooner or later. Chapter 4 focus on the explosion proper, and on how it could happen. Chapter 5, appropriately titled “Aftermath: The Next 10,000 Years” is one of the most interesting ones, and describes a number of long term scenarios that could result from such an event. These scenarios range from a benevolent and enlightened dictatorship (by the AI) to the enslaved God situation, where humanity keeps the AI in chains and uses it as a slave to develop new technologies, inaccessible to unaided humanity’s simpler minds. Always present, in these scenarios, are the risks of a hostile takeover by a human-created AGI, a theme that this book also addresses in depth, following on the ideas proposed by Nick Bostrom, in his book Superintelligence.

Being a cosmologist, Tegmark could not leave out the question of how life can spread through the Cosmos, a topic covered in depth in chapter 6, in a highly speculative fashion. Tegmark’s view is, to say the least, grandiose, envisaging a future where AGI will make it possible to spread life through the reachable universe, climbing the three levels of the Kardashev scale. The final chapters address (in a necessarily more superficial manner) the complex topics of goal setting for AI systems and artificial (or natural) consciousness. These topics somehow felt less well developed and more complete and convincing treatments can be found elsewhere. The book ends with a description of the mission of the Future of Life Institute, and the Asilomar AI Principles.

A book like this cannot leave anyone indifferent, and you will be likely to take one of two opposite sides: the optimistis, with many famous representatives, including Elon Mush, Stuart Russel and Nick Bostrom, who believe AGI can be developed and used to make humanity prosper; or the pessimists , whose more visible member is probably Yuval Noah Harari, who has voiced very serious concerns about technology developments in his book Homo Deus and in this review of Life 3.0.

Taxing robots: a solution for unemployment or a recipe for economic disaster?

In a recent interview with Quartz, Bill Gates, who cannot exactly be called a Luddite, argued that a robot tax should be levied and used to help pay for jobs in healthcare and education, which are hard to automate and can only be done by humans (for now). Gates pointed out that humans are taxed on the salary they make, unlike the robots who could replace them.

Gates argued that governments must take more control of the consequences of increased technological sophistication and not rely on businesses to redistribute the income that is generated by the new generation of robots and artificial intelligence systems.

Although the idea looks appealing, it is in reality equivalent to taxing capital, as this article in The Economist explains. Taxing capital investments will slow down increases in productivity, and may lead, in the end, to poorer societies. Bill Gates’ point seems to be that investing in robots does indeed improve productivity, but also causes significant negative externalities, such as long term unemployment and increased income distribution inequalities. These negative externalities might justify a specific tax on robots, aimed at alleviating these negative externalities. In the end, it comes down to deciding whether economic growth is more important than ensuring everyone has a job.

As The Economist puts it: “Investments in robots can make human workers more productive rather than expendable; taxing them could leave the employees affected worse off. Particular workers may suffer by being displaced by robots, but workers as a whole might be better off because prices fall. Slowing the deployment of robots in health care and herding humans into such jobs might look like a useful way to maintain social stability. But if it means that health-care costs grow rapidly, gobbling up the gains in workers’ incomes, then the victory is Pyrrhic.”

Gates´ comments have been extensively analyzed in a number of articles, including this one by Yanis Varoufakis, a former finance minister of Greece, who argues that the robot tax will not solve the problem and is, at any rate, much worse than the existing alternative, a universal basic income.

The question of whether robots should be taxed is not a purely theoretical one. On February 17th, 2017, the European Parliament approved  a resolution with recommendations to the European Commission, which is heavily based on the draft report proposed by the committee on legal affairs, but leaves out the recommendations (included in the draft report) to consider a tax on robots. The decision to reject the robot tax was, unsurprisingly, well received by the robotics industry, as reported  in this article by Reuters.

PHOTO DATE: 12-12-13 LOCATION: Bldg. 32B - Valkyrie Lab SUBJECT: High quality, production photos of Valkyrie Robot for PAO PHOTOGRAPHERS: BILL STAFFORD, JAMES BLAIR, REGAN GEESEMAN

Image courtesy of NASA/Bill Stafford, James Blair and Regan Geeseman, available at Wikimedia Commons.

 

 

India considers the adoption of Universal Basic Income

A recent article published in The Economist reports that India is considering the adoption of a Universal Basic Income (UBI) scheme to replace a myriad of existing welfare systems.

Unlike the discussions that are taking place in other countries, this discussion about Universal Basic Income is not motivated by advances in technology and the fear of massive unemployment. The main aim of such a measure would be to replace many existing welfare mechanisms that are expensive, ineffective, and misused.

The scheme would provide every single citizen with a guaranteed basic income of 9 dollars a month ( hardly a vast sum ) and would cost between 6 and 7% of GDP. The 950 existing welfare schemes cost about 5% of GDP. Such a large scale experiment would, at least, contribute to make clear the advantages and disadvantages of UBI as a way to make sure every human being has a minimum wage, independent of any other considerations or the existence of jobs.

tajmahalbyamalmongia

Photo by Amal Mongia, available at Multimedia Commons.

What if jobs are the problem, and not the solution?

In a fascinating article, worth reading in its entirety, James Livingston, author of No More Work: Why Full Employment Is a Bad Idea, asks a key question about the future of work: Why do we believe that every productive, adult, human being should have work, and get paid for it?

As he puts it: “For centuries – since, say, 1650 – we’ve believed that it builds character (punctuality, initiative, honesty, self-discipline, and so forth). We’ve also believed that the market in labour, where we go to find work, has been relatively efficient in allocating opportunities and incomes. And we’ve believed that, even if it sucks, a job gives meaning, purpose and structure to our everyday lives – at any rate, we’re pretty sure that it gets us out of bed, pays the bills, makes us feel responsible, and keeps us away from daytime TV. These beliefs are no longer plausible. In fact, they’ve become ridiculous, because there’s not enough work to go around..:”

nomorework

His point is that, in the future, there will simply not be enough interesting, well-paid, jobs to create full employment. Of course, I am not forgetting the favorite argument of traditional economists, that technological revolutions have always created more valuable jobs than the ones they destroyed.

James Livingston has this to say about that argument: “But, wait, isn’t our present dilemma just a passing phase of the business cycle? What about the job market of the future? Haven’t the doomsayers, those damn Malthusians, always been proved wrong by rising productivity, new fields of enterprise, new economic opportunities? Well, yeah – until now, these times. The measurable trends of the past half-century, and the plausible projections for the next half-century, are just too empirically grounded to dismiss as dismal science or ideological hokum.”

It is time to face the truth: this time is different, the fourth industrial revolution will not create jobs enough to keep everyone employed, at least not with the full-time, well-paid jobs that we came to associate  with economically advanced societies. The fraction of GDP that is being paid in salaries shown an unmistakable tendency, since the beginning of the 21st century. Technology will only exacerbate this tendency, as more and more well-paid jobs are lost to machines.

15134556_10210587766985940_7255657276005857315_n

Livingstone makes the point that we can, indeed, afford, a minimum guaranteed income for everyone (let’s just call it “entitlements”). In his words: “But are these transfer payments and ‘entitlements’ affordable, in either economic or moral terms? By continuing and enlarging them, do we subsidise sloth, or do we enrich a debate on the rudiments of the good life? … I know what you’re thinking – we can’t afford this! But yeah, we can, very easily. We raise the arbitrary lid on the Social Security contribution, which now stands at $127,200, and we raise taxes on corporate income, reversing the Reagan Revolution. These two steps solve a fake fiscal problem and create an economic surplus where we now can measure a moral deficit.”

Whether you want to call it a minimum guaranteed income, or just a overhaul of the social security system, it is time to face this truth, and to think of the mechanisms that should be put in place to address the social challenges. caused by technology.

Face it, jobs are the problem, not the solution!

 

Andrew McAfee at the Lisbon Web Summit: what lies beyond the second machine age?

Andrew McAfee, Research Scientist at MIT, and author of a number of works on the future of technology, was live at the 2016 Lisbon Web Summit.

30746916832_11b789be05_oIn this interesting talk he referred to the fact that, despite all advances in science that took place over the last millennia, neither population size nor quality of life did improve significantly until the advent of the industrial revolution. The radical takeoff in quality of life and in population size, which can be seen in one of his slides, below, only took place when man managed to use steam and electrical power to replace human labor.

graphic

The author (together with  Erik Brynjolfsson) of The Second Machine Age pointed out that we are in the brim of a second machine revolution of comparable consequences.

second-machine-age

Artificial intelligence and new information technology applications are already creating a new society, with different values and requirements. New technologies are already decreasing the spending of raw materials in the US, and are contributing to create a more efficient and compassionate society.

However, these changes will not all be easy to integrate in our current model of society. For instance, global warming remains a serious problem for the planet, and new technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, will lead to systems that may replace humans in the majority of cognitive tasks. This may lead to a society where full employment will no longer be the rule, or even desirable, creating the need for the adoption of alternative income redistribution strategies, such as the adoption of universal basic income.

Youtube features a longer talk, by Andrew McAfee, which covers many of the same issues he presented at the Web Summit.