Extremely Leisurely Society and Basic Income

　An extremely leisurely society brought about by AI. We need to find a way of life that doesn’t revolve around work. There will be a lot that we could do. Eating and drinking. Romance. Art. Study. Service.

  However, AI and robots can’t possibly take all of the jobs.  So let’s assume that as it has been predicted, only half of jobs will be lost. If that’s the case, a major theme will be whether or not an economic system will still be able to function in an extremely leisurely society.

  If they take half of the work then presumably that means they will take on responsibility for half of the production. If we lose half of our work, and the production output and GDP do not changes will the world continue to go round? Thus we’re faced more with an issue of distribution, than production.

  One answer to this question, is basic income (minimum standard of living,  guaranteed minimum income). This is a system where regardless of whether you work or not, everyone will be paid the minimum amount necessary to make a living. This is considered by many to be a bold political plan that will result in an ageing population and increase the cost of social welfare. But the rise of AI and robots will also have an effect on this point as well.

  In June 2016, Switzerland carried out a national referendum to weigh the pros and cons of such a system. The monthly stipend for an adult is 2500 swiss francs (approximately 275,000 yen). It was proposed that pensions and unemployment benefits would be abolished in favor of basic income. Around 80% voted against the proposal. The arguments for it were not well developed and the government opposed it.

 Meanwhile, in January of this year Finland selected 2,000 people in a raffle to participate in an experiment where each person was given 560 euros a month (about 70,000 yen). Similar experiments are also being planned in Utrecht, Netherlands, Ontario, Canada, Livorno, Italy, and Glasgow, Scotland.

　Such a system is possible. We just need to conduct research into whether this is something that can only be achieved by drastically changing the entire social security system. First, we need to devise a numerical formula for how much basic income is needed to abolish social security.

  In addition, we need to asses the effect that a basic income will have on people's desire to work and the effect it will have on the economy. If basic income becomes a reality it might be the case that people who like working will still work.

  In this regard, Professor Shigeki Morinobu of Chuo University has presented a study based on the data.

"The Reality of the Argument That We Can Use Basic Income to Help People Deprived of Work by Artificial Intelligence"

http://diamond.jp/articles/-/98513

  In order to pay 100,000 yen per person every month, taxation would need to be at about  60 trillion yen. In-depth political measures that use data to generate a source of revenue are to be expected. I will continue to think about discussions like these relating to the compatibility of AI technology and socio-economics. It is time for scholars of the sciences and humanities to make their appearance.

  Murray Shanahan in his book Singularity, says that it requires a large societal and political determination.

Whether the future of AI is pessimistic or optimistic, I agree with Shanahan.

And I think it’s about time that we start having these kinds of discussions and deliberations.

  Singularity looks at the possibility of a digital personal assistant, and pursues discussions on giving rights and personality to AI. This reminds me of when Mr. Ken Akamatsu brought up the issue of personality in AI with the Intellectual Property Department of the Japanese Government.

  However, a related issued concerning the personality of AI, is how should we view the possibility of AI being copied, divided, and combined? How do we account for the fact that citizenship is closely tied to the state? This is what the author wants to point out. Designing a system is difficult.

  AI is still at the theoretical engineering stage, but looking forward to its implementation, it is important that we seek out and mobilize experts in subjects like society, economics, politics, philosophy, and religion. This has gone from a problem for researchers, to a problem everyone, a problem for all of us.  

　

  A society with basic income and no work. We need to debate the wisdom of disciplines such as economics and political science internationally and think about a realistic plan.

Read More

In Search of the Fantasy of a Super Smart Society

  Articles that claim that Japan is falling behind in the competition to develop AI stand out.

American companies like IBM, Google, and Apple are taking the lead in AI research. The Japanese government is holding a conference on “Artificial Intelligence Technology Strategy”,but it may be too late.

  Since the fervor around artificial intelligence died down in the 80s Japan has become silent. When I was at the MIT Media Lab at the end of the 90s, the AI advocates were quite active, while interest in AI was waning within Japanese companies.

　

  Even if we try to light the fire of deep learning again, in these panicked times, this is a contest in which American corporations have invested trillions of yen, so it is no longer at a level that universities can handle by taxation. Japan’s late arrival to the contest is not an issue of a lack of talented people in universities, it is an issue of corporate investment.

  If Japan still has a chance to prevail, they should be more focused on use than development. In the same way that Japanese high school girls have transformed IT /mobile technology via emoticons and photos taken on mobile phones.

 Japan should position themselves as a developed country by introducing new technology related to pop culture and other fields that they excel in or in the fields of welfare, nursing care, or disaster prevention, and produce industry and culture.

  And the government should lead the way to more straightforward use of AI. First of all, the higher officials in the government should be given AI, and show how serious they are about it by using it themselves.

  However, it is important to view AI as a target for investment and sales, but to see it only in that way would be to mistake the general trend.

  It is customary to call AI and IoT the “The 4th Industrial Revolution”  or Industry 4.0. With the previous revolutions being as follows, 1st: Light Industry,  2nd: Heavy Industry,  3rd: Information Industry.

  However, I wonder whether this is really an “industry” revolution. If that were the case you would expect industry to be the first to be reformed, but I think the effect on culture and society are much greater.

　Even if we position IT as the 3rd industrial revolution, was it really an industry revolution for us? Wasn't it more of a cultural revolution? More important than the growth of the IT industry and the industry becoming more IT based, I think a bigger change was the way in which everyone was equipped with, and able to transmit, information.

  If we think of the 17th century industrial revolution as a change that only occurs once in 300 years, I think the information revolution that resulted from IT, was an expression of innovation that only occurs once in a 1000 years. Maybe then AI/IoT is a reformation that humans have yet to achieve, that only occurs once every 10000 years. So wouldn't it be too small a strategy to force it into the category of “industrial”.

  Therefore, alongside the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the Government of Japan decided to call their efforts towards a super smart society "Society 5.0". In other words the fifth revolution in civilization following after the 1st: Hunting, 2nd: Agriculture, 3rd: Industry, and 4th: Information.

  Recently, a telecommunications white paper from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications focused on the surplus IT consumers. The value of IT cannot be measured by GDP. Even if the sales of the industry do not increase, the effect on user's money, time, and psychology are considerable. Which means that it exceeds the value of an industry, and we are faced with the question of how to view it as civilization, which involves society and culture.

　 It's less a matter of how AI will impact investment and sales, and more a matter of what we should expect from AI, and how we can expect AI to shake up society. With that as the index by which I judge this trend, I want to start making countermeasures. However, this effort has only just begun.

Read More

Superhuman Sports Dismantles the Barrier Between the Olympics and Paralympics

　Following the Olympic and Paralympic games in Rio, next year the Winter Olympics will be in Pyeongchang.

If an olympiad is a superhuman, then a paralympian is also a superhuman. In the Paralympics, there are many contests which involve wheelchairs or artificial legs. The tools that handicapped people use allow them to come closer to what it’s like to be an able-bodied person, they bring a minus closer to zero.

　Gold medalist Markus Rehm of Germany leaped 8m40cm at the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, held in Doha, Qatar. The gold medal at the Rio Olympics was for 8m38cm. Paralympians are already exceeding Olympians. The day when the Paralympic Games exceeds the Olympic Games is coming.

  The pioneer was Oscar Pistorius who has two artificial legs. In 2008, the Court of Arbitration for Sport overturned the judgment of the International Association of Athletics Federations, and Pistorius was approved for participation in the “Olympics”.

At the London Olympics he competed in the men's 400m and 4x400m relay. At the Paralympics immediately after, he competed in the 100m, 200m, 400m, and 4x100m relays. He competed in both the Olympic and Paralympic games.

  And, the artificial legs of both Pistorius and Rehm were considered cool. People with artificial legs are no longer pitiable, but their artificial limbs are a testament to these admirable, bright, strong men and women.

  “There is no longer a barrier separating the Olympics and the Paralympics. So why don’t we combine the Olympics and Paralympics into one competition.” “Wait, that wouldn’t be fair. Even if the human body is inferior to machines, there is worth in a competition restricted to the unadorned body. We should keep them separate.”

“Eyeglasses correct your vision. They are a tool to aid people with bad eyesight. But those who wear glasses are still allowed to participate in the Olympics. If that’s the case, what’s wrong with taking corrective measures for the limbs?”

“Wait a second, this is different from one's sense of hearing or sense of sight. Glasses have become so commonplace that they are even used just as a fashion accessory.  The status of artificial limbs is completely different.”

  This is not an easy debate. It’s all well and good for the Paralympics to exceed the Olympics, but it’s possible that the other softer barriers that were overlooked on the way to that aim, will only become harder.

  Rehm originally was hoping to take part in the Rio Olympics, but he was not given the OK so he ended up competing in the Paralympics. Due to “political circumstances” Rehm had to abandon his hopes of competing in the Olympics, in other words he was impeded by the barrier of regulations.

  He said that, “I think that if we try to gradually change the current situation where the Olympics and Paralympics are completely separate, new possibilities and aspirations might come into view.” I agree with him.

　  However, in the current situation, from our perspective, paralympians are the ones who have attained the status of a privileged class. Because if you look at Olympians as naked superhumans, and Paralympians as machine-enhanced superhumans, we can participate in the former but not the latter.

　  The door to the Olympics is open to any able-bodied person who wants to participate, but if you can’t become a superhuman you will have to give up on participating. But with the Paralympics, you can’t participate as an able-bodied person, and paralympians are currently the most formidable of superhumans. This is unfair.

  There are some events such as wheelchair basketball where participation is allowed. But, if you want to compete with an artificial leg like Rehm, your only option is to cut your leg off. You could cut it off, but that's not very satisfying.

  That is probably because the Olympic sports are based on ancient sports and the sports of agrarian societies. Let’s repurpose sports for the 21st century and the information age. Lets design a new kind of sports from scratch, so that the able-bodied, the disabled, men and women, young and old, olympians, and paralympians, far and wide can all participate under the same rules.

  Drone races, bubble jumper, HADO, Chariott, Hover Crosse...We at the Superhuman Sports Society are developing games that will dismantle the barrier between the Olympic and Paralympic games. Looking forward to the Tokyo 2020 we are focusing all of our strength on this task. We hope you’ll look forward to our results.

Read More