Everything that a human can do, a machine can do - including lying, cheating, and making wrong decisions.
Following an if-then statement is not making a decision.
But more importantly, machines don't get to vote in or write laws - only humans get to do that.
And while a machine may be programmed for corruption and self interest - both are quite natural for humans.
Which includes lawyers... who tend to be THE humans who write and vote in laws.
I.e. Lawyers will not allow laws which could put them out of work... while giving away the control of the judiciary system to machines and giving up democracy in exchange for a machine dictatorship.
It's not a matter of tech being there or not - it's a matter of humans being the only species with rights on this planet.
Give it time.
Can't. Don't have that much time in my life left. And I'm only 38.
When robots (cause you can't outsource services for people - cause you need them where people already ARE) become able to replace medical professionals - there won't be ANY workplaces anyway.
If a robot can operate on a human, do examinations, prescribe therapies... and do it in a way that it can replace human beings without increasing the number of deaths and injuries...
Then there is no job that a robot can't do.
Apart from those creative, artistic ones.
And since we can't all be writers, singers, actors, dancers etc. - and live from it... Hello communist utopia!
Or Star Trek. But that's me repeating myself.
I mean, I'd LIKE to see that in my lifetime... but let's face it - it ain't happening. At least not for a while longer.
Amazon made that moot already.
You are confusing being a consumer to being sold something. Salesmanship (and all other -ships) is a social skill.
All that computers accomplish when trying to simulate social skills is causing irritation in humans.
Why do you think there's so much money and effort invested in advertising if "selling things" is a moot point?
There's a third category: Government jobs, where you're required to act like a robot.
Some would say that you are required to be a citizen.
But the actual underlying requirement is that you are a human being, capable of understanding (and respecting) social contracts.
Which is why no matter how many tricks an animal can perform or how good it is at being intelligent sorta-kinda like a retarded human child - it doesn't get to be a citizen.
Then again, some humans are given way too much credit under the assumption that they are capable of understanding social contracts.
Thus, you know... Trump 2016.
Isn't there? When I had young children I heard about that constantly; men can make a very valuable contribution to the traditional women's jobs.
Child day care services jobs in the US are 94% female.
Nursing care is 84.9% female.
Health care average is 78.5% female.
Incidentally, HC alone is some 20.077.000 jobs.
Manufacturing (which is male dominated) is 15.338.000 jobs, while information industry (also male dominated) which includes everything from news and libraries to software and film industry is 2.988.000 jobs.
BTW, women also dominate the veterinary services (80.7%) - i.e. care for animals.
It's almost as if women gravitate towards (and clearly excel at) jobs which allow them to care for others.
Even when those they care for may bite, hiss and claw at them.
Yeah... women also dominate beauty (91.9%) and nail salon (73.2%) services too.
You can't outsource or replace with robots services catering to humans and their bodies.
Nor can you outsource or robotize salesmanship, leadership and all the other -ships.
And there will probably always be legal reasons why legal services and public administration can't be out given out to foreign employees or machines.
But speaking of services for humans...
Education and health services are about as female dominated as manufacturing tends to be male dominated.
Actually, slightly more... 74.65% for E&H vs 71.9% for manufacturing.
But much more important is that there are more than twice as many jobs in E&H services (33,678 thousands ) than in manufacturing (15,338 thousands).
Education and health services is actually the BIGGEST industry in the US, making up more than a fifth (but not quite a quarter - 22.62%) of ALL JOBS in the USA.
You can't outsource child care or health care cause you can't outsource people. And robots are nowhere near to be able to do that job.
Making those E&H jobs safe and secure.
Amazingly, that category has the most humans who, thorough a quirk of biology, tend to have the need for a safe and stable environment in order to gestate, give birth to and raise the next generation of humans.
"I don't care if the information about Hillary's lies are part of some Russian plot or not. If the truth is "destabilizing" well then fuck stability. Hillary admitting to having "public" and "private" positions is a piece of information that I, as a citizen, want to have."
Sure, but here's the question you need to ask yourself, given that, are you willing to completely and utterly disregard it when choosing a political candidate to back, given that you have absolutely no idea whether Trump shares the exact same trait due to a lack of similar leaks on his side of the spectrum?
Therein lies the problem, if you're only receiving one side of facts, and are deciding based on only a half-truth, then you're no better off than if someone had just outright lied to you. You're still exactly as likely to make an incorrect choice when you have half the information, as when you have all the information - Wikileaks is influencing the election with half-truths.
The English legal system originally changed it's court vow from "I promise to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth" to "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" precisely because after a few shoddy court cases where the guilty went free it was realised that half-truths can be as misleading as outright lies.
So sure, transparency is great, but unless you're willing to completely disregard everything from transparency leaks that only tell half the story when forming an actual opinion and making a decision then there's a good chance you're actually making yourself more stupid by making decisions based upon those half-truths because you're letting them influence you into making decisions that do not benefit either your personal self-interest, or any hint of altruism you may have. For something like an election there is simply absolutely no benefit in making a decision based on transparency of one candidate over another with no transparency, and that works both ways - you may now believe you know, you have evidence that Hillary is corrupt, but what you don't know is whether Donald is even more corrupt, and that is a problem - you still have the exact same 50-50 chance of guessing which one is more corrupt that you had before you had any of that leaked information.
You say that, but in the UK when libel laws last changed, there were actually papers sat on both sides of the argument. Typically the division was the red tops that libel and ruin people's lives on one side being pissed they wont get away with it anymore, and those who publish factual, well sourced information and that have some actual journalistic integrity and hence no threat of losing a libel suit anyway.
So yeah, even with stuff like that it makes no sense that absolutely every media outlet would oppose someone over it. Some are happy to see the sleezy lie-rags pulled into line and forced to compete on the same level by having to do real actual journalism rather than pedalling outright lies to make sales.
That theory assumes Ecuadorians are stupid.
It's also possible they're just as intelligent as the rest of us, and realising that someone is trying to interfere in the election of the world's largest superpower from their embassy could cause a whole lot of political shit that they don't need beyond that they're already willing to accept having given him refuge was sufficient all by itself.
Really, if my neighbour kicked her husband out and I let him stay at my place next door, but then he started throwing petrol bombs at her out the window every time she walked past, it wouldn't require her to come and threaten me. I'd just tell him to stop it or GTFO simply because I'm not a complete and utter ass. I suspect the same is true of Ecuador.
I largely agree with you, but I'm not convinced it's a solveable problem, and you've kind of subconciously noted the problem with enforcing that strictly in your own post - what if someone has strong political views that most people find abhorrent, but the bank has to serve them anyway, but that person is also likely to get them in hot bother because they engage in money laundering, or because they simply cause the bank to take a loss? Can they close the account down?
If no, then what happens when everyone whose causing the bank a loss simply declares they have strong political views and uses that as a shield, causing the bank to collapse?
If yes, then what's to stop them just using that excuse to censor anyway - "Oh they're a fraud risk", or "Oh, they're not profitable enough", or "Oh, they cause reputational damage to the company causing a loss for us".
I absolutely agree with you that financial censorship is scary, whatever one may think of Wikileaks (I don't really like it nowadays, it's become a propaganda organisation rather than a transparency organisation) I thought it was always rather disturbing that the US tried to shut down the Iraq/Afghan war log leaks by strongarming Mastercard, Visa, Paypal et. al. to not work with them to censor them and send them offline. It's definitely a real concern, but on the same note how do you implement that legislation whilst also allowing such organisations to reasonably run their businesses?
Also, should it apply to just banks, all financial organisations, or every organisation? If it's just banks, then that means organisations like Paypal, Visa, and Mastercard can cut them off, if it's all financial organisations that's much more clear cut, but it doesn't change the fact other organisations can still censor - a communications infrastructure company could still choose to cut off their broadcast, so you could apply it to every organisation, but then you're right back to square one where businesses are having to potentially serve people that cause them loss and end up going out of businesses anyway.
Here's a semi-related thought experiment from the UK's recent Brexit vote, in the UK it's illegal to discriminate against employees based on political views, but, if a company is forced to make cuts due to Brexit, then shouldn't a company be allowed to fire those who voted for it first and foremost over those who voted against it? Why should some suffer for other's decisions when it would be fairly trivial to make people accountable for their own actions in this sort of case? Should people really be protected from facing the consequences of their actions, whilst expecting others who aren't responsible for their actions to suffer the consequences instead?
I don't know, or even pretend to know the answer to any of these questions - I'm just making the point that it's massively complex, and I'm not sure there really is a rationally objective answer. I think the answer is always going to be subjective and therein lies the problem - what you may view to be a reasonable approach may not be acceptable to the majority. That is unfortunately the reality of democracy, minority viewpoints often get fucked, and the sad reality is that many people don't actually have too much of a problem with censorship, as long as they're not the ones being censored - they're just too dumb to realise that one day it could be them.
Yes, all 3 of them.
Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.