Artificial Warning

An article about Artificial Intelligence crossed my consciousness last week.  It's called "Tech companies should stop pretending AI won't destroy jobs" and is written by Kai-Fu Lee.  This is a thought that I embrace whole-heartedly.

In it, he argues that soon at least half of all jobs will be better and more safely handled by AI.  That we are not ready for the dramatic social upheaval that this transition will cause.  That we should not look to previous economic revolutions (industrial, computer or otherwise) because the same sets of conditions do not apply: things are moving faster than those did, and the transition may not give rise to new forms of work.

For the most part, I agree with him.  AI and automation are going to cause incredible changes.  My first quibble is with the speed: some sectors will be changed much more rapidly due to the economic advantages automation provides.  My second is that Mr. Lee offers no solutions.

Universal Basic Dystopia

This is the fourth and (probably) final installment on my current writing experiment: what might the world look like if Universal Basic Income were implemented?  The first three looked at the basic concept, the suite of tools that I think might be used and how people might take advantage of it.  This one will look at how the government might take advantage of it.

Please keep in mind that this is all conjecture.  I do not know that any of this would actually fall this way.  I remain a proponent of Universal Basic Income, crypto-currencies and their associated Smart Contracts.  I believe that technology will and should be installed inside the human body.  But the thing that I'm writing has taken on a life of its own and is not going in the direction that I originally intended.  And that's a good thing as it makes thing more interesting.

Universal Basic Crime

This continues my series on whatever it is that I'm writing for NaNoWriMo.  The first two can be found here and here.

As of the afternoon of Sunday, November 19, 2017, I'm sitting at 32,184 words written of the 50K required to 'win' National Writing Month.  I'm averaging around 1,700 words a day, which gets me across the finish line on 11/29.  Only not really.  I'll have 50K words written, but this story will be far from finished.  The challenge for me will be two fold: finishing the rest of the rough draft and then doing re-writes.

I already know that I need to fix things.  My villain is turning out to be someone quite different than the one I set out to use.  This is a real issue as I wrote the climactic fight scene first.  In the past, I've tried to be a bit more linear, starting at the beginning and slogging through to the end.  Unfortunately, I realized at about 30K words that I had no idea where the story was going.  I had all kinds of characters and a large problem for them to work on, but I did not know how the problem had originated or how it could be fixed.  So this time, I thought that I'd solve the problem first, then figure out how the characters got there.  I'm not sure that it's better, but I can say that the Scrivener writing software absolutely ROCKS for non-linear story telling.  I highly recommend it.

So what is the central conflict?  Read on.

Universal Basic Plot Device

This last week marks the start of November.  For most of us in the United States, this heralds nothing more than Trick-or-Treating, the end of Daylight Savings Time and the impending doom that is Thanksgiving with its aggressive day-after shopping blitzkrieg.

However, for a few thousand of us, in the US and beyond, it also starts the annual confrontation with self-motivation, internal demons and writer's block known as National Novel Writing Month.  NaNoWriMo for short.  The goal is to write 50,000 words in one month.  1,667 words a day.

I have entered a few times and completed it once (Purity, an attempted mash up of "The Last Unicorn" with "Game of Thrones").  Then I realized that 50,000 words, as many as that is, does not automatically equal a completed work of art.  I did not have an ending, merely a collection of scenes, some of which might be worth keeping, all of which would need to be extensively rewritten if they were ever going to be worth anything.  It now sits on my Google Drive and mocks me when I open that folder.  So I don't open that folder.

This year, I've done more pre-planning and am starting by writing the climax and then working backwards.  I'm not sure if this is any better than working in a more linear fashion, but it can't be worse.  You can track my progress, if you care, here.

Aside from the I'm-writing-this-and-this-other-thing-so-you-should-be-interested-in-both, there is more connecting this blog to my nascent novel.  Because of all my rambling thoughts on Universal Basic Income, Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and Smart IDs, I've decided to set the novel in a world where all of those things are ubiquitous parts of the landscape.  I plan on using this post, and all of the rest through the month of November, to build this world in a fast-finger stream of consciousness.

Equi-Fu**ed

I've written about on-line privacy before and the utter helplessness surrounding it for the individual citizen.  The Equifax hack highlights this again and takes it to new and more horrifying heights.

Equifax, one of the three credit reporting agencies used by every US entity that needs to decide if any one person is trustworthy, had 143 million records stolen out of their supposedly secure database.  That is roughly two-thirds of the population with a credit report (approximately 246 million people aged fifteen and up).  Bottom line: your information has been exposed.

There have been many data hacks in the past, from Target to Sony to G-Mail and on.  This one is worse.  While those others have had some information, often including social security numbers and credit card information, Equifax makes its business collecting all of that information: credit card payment histories, utility payment histories, mortgages, employment, bank accounts and more.  On everyone who has ever opened any of those.  They collect all of this so that they can help banks and employers and others decide if you will pay your bills on time.  If you are someone who is responsible.

But how can any of that be trusted if the company collecting it proves not to be responsible?

Virgin Money

Over the past week or so, there has been an increase in interest in Universal Basic Income (UBI).  A couple more of the tech elite have added their voices to those of Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg in support of this Utopian economic concept: Stewart Butterfield, founder of Slack, and Richard Branson, founder of all things Virgin.

The two of them are coming at the concept from slightly different bents.  Mr. Butterfield sees it as a way to help those hurt by localized market inflation, similar to the housing market in Silicon Valley where high tech salaries have driven home prices out of reach of all of the ancillary jobs that those technocrats take for granted.  It doesn't matter how well sourced your latte's beans are if you don't have a barista available to prepare it.

Mr. Branson is looking at it from a bit more humanitarian perspective, having met with groups working in Finland to understand how that countries limited UBI program is working.  In a blog post, he states:

"In the modern world, everybody should have the opportunity to work and to thrive. Most countries can afford to make sure that everybody has their basic needs covered. One idea that could help make this a reality is a universal basic income. This concept should be further explored to see how it can work practically."

This is slightly different than both Musk and Zuckerberg who are more concerned with the fallout from workplace automation and how we all can afford basic necessities if we don't have jobs.

Work is What You Make of AI

Last month I got all on a kick about how automation is going to take our jobs and that that is a good thing.  There has been some more press on this topic so I want to continue kicking it around.

The first article for my shouting-into-an-empty-house discussion is from the BBC: How long will it take for your job to be automated.  This is about an Oxford study that asked 352 scientists how long various jobs would take to be automated.  This is a better information than the one that the Will Robots Take My Job site used.  And it offers up a time frame that is more heartening for those that are hip deep in the status quo: 120 year before 50% of all jobs are automated.  Hold on to that thought.

The second article is about Eric Schmidt, Google Founder and Techno Spouter (of course I'm jealous, people ask his opinions instead of me trying to force them down any ear that will listen).  In it, Mr. Schmidt puts forth the idea that A.I. will create more jobs that can't be filled instead of destroying them.  His reasoning is that automation will make workers more efficient, more productive, but that humans will still need to be part of the process.  He cites a McKinsey study that says that 5% of current jobs can be automated with today's technology for his reasoning.  It's a very together-we-are-stronger statement, but it has a few holes.