An issue I think about some is mental health therapy and the job of mental health counsellor. On the one hand it has features that cry out for automation: it is hard to find a counsellor, appointments are often inconvenient -- sometimes highly so -- in time, space, and money. On the other hand the resistance to the idea of a robot therapist by potential patients and clients is extreme. In my experience people regard the idea as about a ridiculous a notion as there is -- maybe on a level with robot Rabbis. But I admit that if I knew enough about the process I might see the logic in this very high degree of skepticism. But I can't quite give up hope. I am surrounded by people who need therapy and can't get/afford it.
This is a great topic to explore. I've read quite a few articles and I'll probably write something, although it's undefined yet.
I'd say the reason why most people reject the idea of robot therapists (even those who could believe there's some sort of intention behind the wires) is that, in essence, therapy is about human connection. Even if a robot therapist could provide a better service (although I don't see this happening), most people would still prefer a person.
Some jobs don't seem to be just about doing, but about being--therapists, nurses, doctors, caretakers, teachers... those are inherently human professions.
Belonging, relatedness, etc. are more important than mastery (and I wonder if it's possible to be a master at any of those jobs without the human component. Dr. House is a good example).
>> Some jobs don't seem to be just about doing, but about being--therapists, nurses, doctors, >> caretakers, teachers... those are inherently human professions.
I would add all spiritual jobs to this list -- Rabbis, Ministers, Priests, and the like. Plus jobs whose employers want to signal commitment. Imagine a world in which restaurants can be entirely automated. I suspect that in that world the industry will break into two tiers -- a sector where the restaurants are automated and prices are low, like MacDonald's, and one staffed by humans where prices are high. People will go to the place with the human staff for special occasions, like when a salesman is trying to close a pricy deal, or a guy is hoping to get his date in a good mood. The fact that the staff is human is a way signaling commitment to the relationship. Also there will be lots of opportunities for greeters. I suspect those will mostly be humans.
But the mental health issue really needs work. There might be issues that even current technologies can help with. The need is great.
I definitely agree that automation is a good thing, and that if we pair it with socialized medicine/healthcare and possibly universal basic income, hopefully it will only mean that humans can engage in more meaningful work. I’m excited to explore this further in future posts!
Is it possible, sometime in the future, we have so much of our lives easily disrupted by an unintentional AI glitch?
Will I slowly blur the line between free will and following the course of AI? I already do this when navigating with Waze, when I mainly rely on its course corrections without much thought. Eventually, will I regret the authority/trust I put into these systems?
I'd argue that yes, we may be already delegating too much of our decision-making into AI systems and AI-powered applications (they're everywhere). On the one hand, they make mistakes, and, on the other hand, even if they didn't, we may lose some of our ability to make good decisions--situation that will get even worse for those who won't develop it in the first place. AI can make life more comfortable and easier--but at a cost.
I recommend you this talk by Dr. Hannah Fry: "Should Computers Run the World?" https://youtu.be/Rzhpf1Ai7Z4 Illuminating!
Thanks for sharing the link. She makes a good point about the need for partnership with AI. I see this working exceptional well in the kinds of examples she shared, like medicine. Still, I fear we will not always have the option or knowledge to “override” or work in tandem. Especially as it becomes part of the fabric of our daily lives. Will the knowledge gap be too great for some people or some use cases?
Thanks again for the informative article and content!
"Will the knowledge gap be too great for some people or some use cases?" That's the key question, Steven! I agree with you completely.
I think so, yes. That's the main reason why this newsletter exists in the first place. Bridging the gap between a technology that is going to become ubiquitous and the people who won't know much about it but will, regardless, be affected by it--in so many ways.
I have an idea for an article very similar to what you asked actually (that's why I had the link at hand). About how much we delegate to AI and algorithms without realizing it, how that tendency could increase, what would the consequences be, and what we can do about it.
If I could afford it I would buy you a Tesla so long as you promised to run it in self-driving beta mode as much as possible. I would be interested in your experiences. I have a friend with a Tesla -- who is a total believer in the technology long-term -- who says he has to take control at least once every mile or so (we live in Boston). (He says the problem is not highway driving exactly but understanding and dealing with what other drivers are expecting from you.) His experience is that Level 5 is at least one and maybe two decades away, and I can't really imagine a world where AGI is real but Level 5 is not.
So here is my prediction: the next fifty years will be like the last fifty. A lot of very interesting work going on in start-ups and laboratories and a small number of commercially important innovations every year. But just a handful. As you say: "As a scientific field, AI entails different paradigms and inventions, none of which has made a deep-enough dent in the fabric of society to stand out by itself. In contrast, it comprises many small but compounding advances that, over time, are changing society at all levels." Exactly right.
"If I could afford it I would buy you a Tesla" best gift ever, Fred!! I agree with your friend, although I don't have first-hand experience with the tech, only second-hand testimony, at best. Still, my impression is similar. Idk about "two decades," but more than most people expect, certainly.
"The next fifty years will be like the last fifty." Very interesting perspective. Advances across the different AI subfields don't necessarily advance meaningfully the field, as a whole, toward AGI/superintelligence/sentient machines. I could very well agree with that. Again, 50 years is a lot of time and I'm aware of how bad humans are with predictions. But yeah, it's a more than reasonable possibility (for those not in love with AGI, at least).
An issue I think about some is mental health therapy and the job of mental health counsellor. On the one hand it has features that cry out for automation: it is hard to find a counsellor, appointments are often inconvenient -- sometimes highly so -- in time, space, and money. On the other hand the resistance to the idea of a robot therapist by potential patients and clients is extreme. In my experience people regard the idea as about a ridiculous a notion as there is -- maybe on a level with robot Rabbis. But I admit that if I knew enough about the process I might see the logic in this very high degree of skepticism. But I can't quite give up hope. I am surrounded by people who need therapy and can't get/afford it.
This is a great topic to explore. I've read quite a few articles and I'll probably write something, although it's undefined yet.
I'd say the reason why most people reject the idea of robot therapists (even those who could believe there's some sort of intention behind the wires) is that, in essence, therapy is about human connection. Even if a robot therapist could provide a better service (although I don't see this happening), most people would still prefer a person.
Some jobs don't seem to be just about doing, but about being--therapists, nurses, doctors, caretakers, teachers... those are inherently human professions.
Belonging, relatedness, etc. are more important than mastery (and I wonder if it's possible to be a master at any of those jobs without the human component. Dr. House is a good example).
What do you think?
>> Some jobs don't seem to be just about doing, but about being--therapists, nurses, doctors, >> caretakers, teachers... those are inherently human professions.
I would add all spiritual jobs to this list -- Rabbis, Ministers, Priests, and the like. Plus jobs whose employers want to signal commitment. Imagine a world in which restaurants can be entirely automated. I suspect that in that world the industry will break into two tiers -- a sector where the restaurants are automated and prices are low, like MacDonald's, and one staffed by humans where prices are high. People will go to the place with the human staff for special occasions, like when a salesman is trying to close a pricy deal, or a guy is hoping to get his date in a good mood. The fact that the staff is human is a way signaling commitment to the relationship. Also there will be lots of opportunities for greeters. I suspect those will mostly be humans.
But the mental health issue really needs work. There might be issues that even current technologies can help with. The need is great.
I definitely agree that automation is a good thing, and that if we pair it with socialized medicine/healthcare and possibly universal basic income, hopefully it will only mean that humans can engage in more meaningful work. I’m excited to explore this further in future posts!
I will, thanks Elle!!
Very interesting. Thank you.
Is it possible, sometime in the future, we have so much of our lives easily disrupted by an unintentional AI glitch?
Will I slowly blur the line between free will and following the course of AI? I already do this when navigating with Waze, when I mainly rely on its course corrections without much thought. Eventually, will I regret the authority/trust I put into these systems?
Great question Steven.
I'd argue that yes, we may be already delegating too much of our decision-making into AI systems and AI-powered applications (they're everywhere). On the one hand, they make mistakes, and, on the other hand, even if they didn't, we may lose some of our ability to make good decisions--situation that will get even worse for those who won't develop it in the first place. AI can make life more comfortable and easier--but at a cost.
I recommend you this talk by Dr. Hannah Fry: "Should Computers Run the World?" https://youtu.be/Rzhpf1Ai7Z4 Illuminating!
Thanks for sharing the link. She makes a good point about the need for partnership with AI. I see this working exceptional well in the kinds of examples she shared, like medicine. Still, I fear we will not always have the option or knowledge to “override” or work in tandem. Especially as it becomes part of the fabric of our daily lives. Will the knowledge gap be too great for some people or some use cases?
Thanks again for the informative article and content!
"Will the knowledge gap be too great for some people or some use cases?" That's the key question, Steven! I agree with you completely.
I think so, yes. That's the main reason why this newsletter exists in the first place. Bridging the gap between a technology that is going to become ubiquitous and the people who won't know much about it but will, regardless, be affected by it--in so many ways.
I have an idea for an article very similar to what you asked actually (that's why I had the link at hand). About how much we delegate to AI and algorithms without realizing it, how that tendency could increase, what would the consequences be, and what we can do about it.
Thank you for reading!!
Great article! Absolutely loved it!
Thank you Arnold!!
Possibly of interest (AI and medicine):
https://bit.ly/3RHsrAB
If I could afford it I would buy you a Tesla so long as you promised to run it in self-driving beta mode as much as possible. I would be interested in your experiences. I have a friend with a Tesla -- who is a total believer in the technology long-term -- who says he has to take control at least once every mile or so (we live in Boston). (He says the problem is not highway driving exactly but understanding and dealing with what other drivers are expecting from you.) His experience is that Level 5 is at least one and maybe two decades away, and I can't really imagine a world where AGI is real but Level 5 is not.
So here is my prediction: the next fifty years will be like the last fifty. A lot of very interesting work going on in start-ups and laboratories and a small number of commercially important innovations every year. But just a handful. As you say: "As a scientific field, AI entails different paradigms and inventions, none of which has made a deep-enough dent in the fabric of society to stand out by itself. In contrast, it comprises many small but compounding advances that, over time, are changing society at all levels." Exactly right.
"If I could afford it I would buy you a Tesla" best gift ever, Fred!! I agree with your friend, although I don't have first-hand experience with the tech, only second-hand testimony, at best. Still, my impression is similar. Idk about "two decades," but more than most people expect, certainly.
"The next fifty years will be like the last fifty." Very interesting perspective. Advances across the different AI subfields don't necessarily advance meaningfully the field, as a whole, toward AGI/superintelligence/sentient machines. I could very well agree with that. Again, 50 years is a lot of time and I'm aware of how bad humans are with predictions. But yeah, it's a more than reasonable possibility (for those not in love with AGI, at least).
What a refreshingly sober yet optimistic take! That's the kind of future we could all get behind.
Glad you liked it Daniel!!