www.transicionestructural.NET es un nuevo foro, que a partir del 25/06/2012 se ha separado de su homónimo .COM. No se compartirán nuevos mensajes o usuarios a partir de dicho día.
0 Usuarios y 9 Visitantes están viendo este tema.
Cita de: Oslodije2 en Agosto 01, 2014, 01:56:50 amCita de: wanderer en Julio 31, 2014, 21:14:54 pmOk, then. Sustituyamos también a los consumidores finales por robots. Espero impaciente a que se atrevan a avanzar en ésa dirección... El capitalismo no necesita grandes cantidades de consumidores "de clase media", con unos pocos ricos y el resto viviendo en la misera le va perfectamenteLa ilusión del consumo fue creada en 1946 para evitar el avance del comunismo en las zonas de influencia usanas, pero ahora que el comunismo ya no es una amenaza porque todo es capitalismo con distintas máscaras, no necesitan "consumidores"Creo que eso deberías explicarlo mejor, porque no me convence en absoluto: el mundo capitalista actual es capaz de ofrecer no ya producción suficiente, sino sobreproducción en muchísimas áreas.¿Para qué no ya producir, sino sobreproducir si no hay consumidores?
Cita de: wanderer en Julio 31, 2014, 21:14:54 pmOk, then. Sustituyamos también a los consumidores finales por robots. Espero impaciente a que se atrevan a avanzar en ésa dirección... El capitalismo no necesita grandes cantidades de consumidores "de clase media", con unos pocos ricos y el resto viviendo en la misera le va perfectamenteLa ilusión del consumo fue creada en 1946 para evitar el avance del comunismo en las zonas de influencia usanas, pero ahora que el comunismo ya no es una amenaza porque todo es capitalismo con distintas máscaras, no necesitan "consumidores"
Ok, then. Sustituyamos también a los consumidores finales por robots. Espero impaciente a que se atrevan a avanzar en ésa dirección...
The Social LaboratorySingapore is testing whether mass surveillance and big data can not only protect national security, but actually engineer a more harmonious society.
Mankind Is Getting Ready To Turn Over Most Decisions To Robots
REUTERS/Gleb GaranichUkrainian Dmitry Balandin poses with his wooden model Cylon in his flat in Zaporizhzhya August 6, 2013. It took Balandin, who works as a crane operator, six months to build the model from 500 parts. Balandin says he does not use blueprints and designs the parts as he works on them. He says he would love to build metal models but that is impossible to do so in his small apartment. He plays with Cylon as a child would play with a doll or Lego toy, and is now making a girlfriend for his model. He hopes to eventually build an entire model family and have them displayed at exhibitions and galleries. Picture taken August 6, 2013.If robots become more cognitively capable than humans, then what happens to ... everything?"In such a future —perhaps a mere fifty years from now — the planet will be completely filled with cognitive and intelligent systems, which will intervene in all aspects of biological life, and humans will be influenced every moment by the decisions these machines make automatically," Alexandre Pupo writes in a World Future Review report titled Cognitively Everywhere: The Omnipresence of Intelligent Machines and the Possible Social Impact.In the future, machines with brain-like capabilities will be able to know everything about everything using tools already in place, such as the internet, and then will be able to reason and put that knowledge to use like people.Pupo lists a few of the ways that this will have a drastic impact on human civilization.Instant AnswersWhen robots become able to reason and think like humans, we will only need to ask one a simple question without overly thinking about how to properly word to get the answer we are looking for, such as with search engines today. Machines will also operate in conjunction with each other to ensure they can produce the knowledge needed to get the answer a person is looking for.Pupo uses the example of searching for a travel route through MapQuest. In the future, machines will be able to give you an entire plan for the event or meeting you're going to, rather than just giving the best possible route there. These machines will consider who else is going and what their preferences are, past experiences, and what to do after the event or meeting. In a sense, machines will be offering us advice.The Google Now service already does some of the basics Pupo outlined in his paper. Google's somewhat futuristic time management service helps to find the best routes based on traffic, weather, and method of transportation while also providing a user with information based on their personal interests. The service is marketed as something that "learns how to help manage your day, letting you focus on what matters," according to the site.Where Pupo's report gets even more surreal is when he claims robots will act as "digital bodyguards" for humans and be able to advise them on things they should and should not do based on the information they are able to collect.How Our Interactions Will ChangeSo when robots become smart enough to give us advice about things such as our next trip to Rockaway Beach with some friends, people will start to rely on them for all sorts of interactions with others.Pupo claims that the robots will make these interactions more peaceful, as they could quickly gather information about anyone, adding that it would be nearly impossible to hide criminal intent or ulterior motives from a machine.Cultural barriers won't be important, and the machines will be able to process information in any language, making communication between someone speaking German and someone speaking English a non-issue.This will cause "human interaction will be governed more by human desires than by knowledge of other cultures and languages," he writes.Essentially, different customs and traditions that divide groups of people will no longer be relevant.Is this good or bad?With robots being able to reason about a much larger amount of information than any human could ever be able to dream about processing, people will look to the machines for answers and advice about everything.And if people are trying to get advice from the machines about everything, he range of possibilities for an interaction will drastically shrink, as machines will be giving you the best possible answer for any dilemma. With this reliance comes a single answer solution for every problem, which will lead to society being guided by the machines, Pupo writes.Questions such as "What should I say at this meeting?" or "How should I approach this girl at the bar?" will be answered by machines within a matter of seconds.He goes on to write about how, at this future point, most interactions will be mediated by the robots."The possibility of getting to know a new person, explore a new place, or learn something simply because you want to may be drastically reduced because machine reasoning will direct people along calculated paths after having concluded that a given opportunity is not the best choice for a particular person," he writes.But would people really just be okay with giving up all of this control to the machines, even if they have good answers? One would think many people would have enough foresight to possibly prevent this massive societal change. As a matter of fact, io9 lists "Human Adviser" and "Descision Maker" as the first two future jobs robots will never be able to take.Kathleen Richardson, a robot anthropologist, put it best when discussing the subject of humans looking for robots to perform the most human of tasks, such as taking care of the elderly, with researchers at Cambridge University."Unfortunately, these roles are not best suited to machines, but to other people," she said. "So the question is: why would we prefer a machine to do them for us?"Kathleen Richardson Unfortunately these roles are not best suited to machines, but to other people. So the question is: why would we prefer a machine do them for us? - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/we-ask-the-experts-will-robots-take-over-the-world#sthash.qifB9pFc.dpuf Unfortunately these roles are not best suited to machines, but to other people. So the question is: why would we prefer a machine do them for us? - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/we-ask-the-experts-will-robots-take-over-the-world#sthash.qifB9pFc.dpuf Unfortunately these roles are not best suited to machines, but to other people. So the question is: why would we prefer a machine do them for us? - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/we-ask-the-experts-will-robots-take-over-the-world#sthash.qifB9pFc.dpuf Don't forget about revolutionWhile not everyone agrees with Pupo's ideas, they are important to consider, since they could lead to a very dangerous place. Machines could start to think of humans as just another species roaming the earth, and, when thinking about how to best preserve the planet, they could even humans are bad for Earth's long-term stability and could even seek to eliminate us.Think of it as a leaky faucet, he writes. If someone has a leaky faucet, they fix it, "without regard for the millions of microorganisms that depends on the trickling water to survive."
Desde la década de 1970 el capitalismo no vive de la producción, vive de la gestión de la escasez. Hay capacidad productiva para fabricar cientos de veces lo que se fabrica ahora, pero no lo hacen porque no hay consumidores en el sistema actual (que puedan pagarlo). Y no digamos si se revertiera la obsolescencia programada, hay muchos productos que pueden durar más de 50 años sin problemas y actualmente tienen ciclos artificiales de vida de 5-10 años para poder venderlos con mayor frecuencia.Por ejemplo las grandes fábricas de coches españolas producen al 10-30% de su capacidad, el modelo no está montado para producir sino para obtener los mayores beneficios posibles con la menor inversión posible, si inventas un sistema en el que con cultivar 1 naranja recibas los ingresos de 100 o 1000 naranjas, ¿para qué vas a cultivar más?
Cita de: Oslodije2 en Agosto 02, 2014, 15:27:59 pmDesde la década de 1970 el capitalismo no vive de la producción, vive de la gestión de la escasez. Hay capacidad productiva para fabricar cientos de veces lo que se fabrica ahora, pero no lo hacen porque no hay consumidores en el sistema actual (que puedan pagarlo). Y no digamos si se revertiera la obsolescencia programada, hay muchos productos que pueden durar más de 50 años sin problemas y actualmente tienen ciclos artificiales de vida de 5-10 años para poder venderlos con mayor frecuencia.Por ejemplo las grandes fábricas de coches españolas producen al 10-30% de su capacidad, el modelo no está montado para producir sino para obtener los mayores beneficios posibles con la menor inversión posible, si inventas un sistema en el que con cultivar 1 naranja recibas los ingresos de 100 o 1000 naranjas, ¿para qué vas a cultivar más?Interesante punto de vista, si fuera absolutamente cierto, sería relativamente sencillo para el ciudadano de a pié con una fracción de esa capacidad productiva ser independiente en buena parte de sus necesidades, alimento, vivienda y mobiliario, energia. ¿No se hace por trabas legistlativas o por inhibición de dichos individuos? Quizá sea el camino que estemos a punto de emprender...
If Schools Don't Change, Robots Will Bring On a 'Permanent Underclass': Report
August 6, 2014 // 01:30 PM ESTRobots are taking all the jobs. But are we, the average, moderately skilled humans, screwed, or aren't we? Let me just get it out of the way now: We are, unless there are drastic, immediate changes to education and economic systems around the world.The dominant narrative going around today about Pew Research's new report on artificial intelligence and the future of jobs is that experts can't really decide whether automation is going to make working obsolete, that it's really a toss up whether robots will simply create new jobs in other sectors as they destroy ones in other. That's true, in one sense: The 1,896 futurists, CEOs, journalists, and university professors questioned for the report were split in half over robots will "displace significant numbers of both blue- and white-collar workers," with 52 percent of respondents agreeing that "human ingenuity will create new jobs, industries, and ways to make a living, just as it has been doing since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution."But there's one major caveat: The respondents overwhelmingly agree that this lovely future where robots do the work and humans design the robots and everyone has leisure time and lots of money only exists in a fantasy future where the school systems pump out a shitload of Elon Musks and Sergey Brins—or, at the very least, people who can reliably work at the companies those guys own."The jobs that the robots will leave for humans will be those that require thought and knowledge. In other words, only the best-educated humans will compete with machines," Howard Rheingold, an internet sociologist, told Pew. "And education systems in the US and much of the rest of the world are still sitting students in rows and columns, teaching them to keep quiet and memorize what is told to them, preparing them for life in a 20th century factory.”ONLY THE BEST-EDUCATED HUMANS WILL COMPETE WITH MACHINESIn other words, if we continue down this path we're on without finding a way to completely revamp the education system to turn the average students into exceptional ones who can outperform a robot, we'll look back on today's income inequality gap and think it was a golden age for the middle class.If the education system doesn't change to start pumping out technologically savvy, creative people as the rule, not the exception, the rise of robot workers is "certain to lead to an increase in income inequality, a continued hollowing out of the middle class, and even riots, social unrest, and/or the creation of a permanent, unemployable 'underclass,'" the Pew report concludes.Yes, historically, technology has killed certain types of jobs while creating others. But what we're seeing happen right now isn't merely a redistribution of unskilled jobs to other sectors over the course of a couple decades, or the outsourcing of factory workers to other countries or cities with better tax breaks. Instead, it's wiping out entire industries, entire swaths of the economy, in years, not decades. And it's killing white collar jobs as frequently as it's killing blue collar ones. As for the jobs created by tech, it doesn't matter what color or kind of collar you wear, because the people who can do those jobs are so highly sought after that they can wear whatever the hell they want. Justin Reich, a Harvard University fellow at its Berkman Center for Internet & Society, perhaps painted the clearest picture of this future:"There will be a labor market in the service sector for non-routine tasks that can be performed interchangeably by just about anyone—and these will not pay a living wage—and there will be some new opportunities created for complex non-routine work, but the gains at this top of the labor market will not be offset by losses in the middle and gains of terrible jobs at the bottom," he told Pew. "The jobs that are left will be lower paying and less secure than those that exist now. The middle is moving to the bottom.”That's why the idea of a basic income is so appealing to many futurists, and why it might inevitably be necessary to keep everyone from starving.We've already seen the beginnings of what Reich is talking about, of course, and we've seen some of the strife that income inequality has caused. There's the chance, maybe the inevitability, that the billions of people whose jobs stand to be automated will revolt. But if the status quo remains, technical skills won't be enough. The only jobs that actually pay enough to live on will be highly skilled, and with a school system that's not turning out enough skilled workers, it's looking increasingly like the "average people"—at least until the education system is systematically and thoroughly reformed—could end up completely screwed.
But if the status quo remains, technical skills won't be enough. The only jobs that actually pay enough to live on will be highly skilled, and with a school system that's not turning out enough skilled workers, it's looking increasingly like the "average people"—at least until the education system is systematically and thoroughly reformed—could end up completely screwed.
CitarBut if the status quo remains, technical skills won't be enough. The only jobs that actually pay enough to live on will be highly skilled, and with a school system that's not turning out enough skilled workers, it's looking increasingly like the "average people"—at least until the education system is systematically and thoroughly reformed—could end up completely screwed.no estoy de acuerdo, el ejemplo lo tenemos en el actual mercado laboralpara empezar sólo hay un número limitado de puestos que requieran alta cualificación técnica. en mi mundo (TI) basta un gurú y luego un montón de tropa que vaya haciendo tareas que se aprenden relativamente rápido, alguien que fije el camino y los métodos y los demás a complementarlepor otro lado estas personas en mi experiencia no son precisamente las personas mejor remuneradas. otros factores tan injustos como haber accedido antes al mundo laboral proveen más ventajas que ser "el" especialista técnicoademás estos especialistas no tienen una diferencia muy acusada en cuanto a remuneración con respecto a la "tropa", pueden estar ganando un 20% ó 25% más que personal mucho menos cualificadoal final la tecnología cambia cada poco tiempo, hay que estar formándose constantemente y además lo técnico tiene un grado de inmadurez (parte innata y parte fomentada por los fabricantes) que le quita fiabilidad y crea nuevas necesidades (así funciona esta industria)las empresas valoran mucho más otros perfiles que aunque tienen que entender lo técnico, se centran más en la gestión de personas, de clientes, negociación, estrategia, expertos en lingüistica y filosofía (google se pirra por ellos), perfiles comerciales etc
El capitalismo no necesita grandes cantidades de consumidores "de clase media", con unos pocos ricos y el resto viviendo en la misera le va perfectamenteLa ilusión del consumo fue creada en 1946 para evitar el avance del comunismo en las zonas de influencia usanas, pero ahora que el comunismo ya no es una amenaza porque todo es capitalismo con distintas máscaras, no necesitan "consumidores"
Cita de: chameleon en Agosto 13, 2014, 10:59:43 amCitarBut if the status quo remains, technical skills won't be enough. The only jobs that actually pay enough to live on will be highly skilled, and with a school system that's not turning out enough skilled workers, it's looking increasingly like the "average people"—at least until the education system is systematically and thoroughly reformed—could end up completely screwed.no estoy de acuerdo, el ejemplo lo tenemos en el actual mercado laboralpara empezar sólo hay un número limitado de puestos que requieran alta cualificación técnica. en mi mundo (TI) basta un gurú y luego un montón de tropa que vaya haciendo tareas que se aprenden relativamente rápido, alguien que fije el camino y los métodos y los demás a complementarlepor otro lado estas personas en mi experiencia no son precisamente las personas mejor remuneradas. otros factores tan injustos como haber accedido antes al mundo laboral proveen más ventajas que ser "el" especialista técnicoademás estos especialistas no tienen una diferencia muy acusada en cuanto a remuneración con respecto a la "tropa", pueden estar ganando un 20% ó 25% más que personal mucho menos cualificadoal final la tecnología cambia cada poco tiempo, hay que estar formándose constantemente y además lo técnico tiene un grado de inmadurez (parte innata y parte fomentada por los fabricantes) que le quita fiabilidad y crea nuevas necesidades (así funciona esta industria)las empresas valoran mucho más otros perfiles que aunque tienen que entender lo técnico, se centran más en la gestión de personas, de clientes, negociación, estrategia, expertos en lingüistica y filosofía (google se pirra por ellos), perfiles comerciales etcSe entiende que eso es donde el mercado laboral medio-funcione. En chiringuitos tercermundistas como el de España, no existe realmente un sector TI que se merezca tal nombre y por eso la sobreoferta de titulados superiores es muy alta. Están al 80% haciendo trabajos que no requieren su titulación, o emigrando.
la mayoría de los ingenieros (o no) que conozco con grandes aptitudes técnicas no saben desenvolverse en los entornos reales que demandan gestión (riesgo, espectativas, negociación, personas...) ni suelen ver claro cuáles son los objetivos, los problemas ni priorizarlosen mi experiencia la excelencia técnica no es suficiente. el gurú técnico no tiene porqué saber qué hay que hacer (arquitectura, dirección, posicionar ideas, filtrar opciones) ni tiene porque ser un creador. el valor añadido está precisamente en estas dos últimas cuestiones, por eso en mi opinión los skills técnicos están sumamente sobrevalorados y adquirir superformación en este sentido no te asegura en ningún modo la "supervivencia" laboral
Cita de: Oslodije2 en Agosto 01, 2014, 01:56:50 amEl capitalismo no necesita grandes cantidades de consumidores "de clase media", con unos pocos ricos y el resto viviendo en la misera le va perfectamenteLa ilusión del consumo fue creada en 1946 para evitar el avance del comunismo en las zonas de influencia usanas, pero ahora que el comunismo ya no es una amenaza porque todo es capitalismo con distintas máscaras, no necesitan "consumidores"La historía (y seguramente la economía) indican mas bien lo contrario. La mayor parte de los recursos y de la producción se emplean en la fabricación de bienes de consumo masivo. Tan sólo en regímenes donde no existe la libertad política o económica (como las teocracias, sistemas de cascas, o periodos de guerra) se remueve una parte importe de la producción a satisfacer la demanda de la aristocracia del momento.
[...]Sobre todo en un país "latino" donde el salario es mucho más una cuestión de política y enchufes que de méritos, puesto que el mercado no es funcional, los "derechos formales" son una mentira y cada uno tiene que pelear sus derechos reales en solitario.