Tumgik
#A variety of headshots are important to have when booking a job
byjaredwolfe · 4 months
Text
Capture the wonderful memories with your loved ones at our family portrait studio!
Are you looking to capture those precious moments spent with your loved ones in a timeless and beautiful way? Look no further than our family portrait studio! Our talented photographers are pros at creating emotive and lovely images that your family will cherish for a lifetime. Whether you're looking to document a special milestone, celebrate a new addition to the family, or simply capture the love and connection between family members, our team is here to help you create lasting memories.
Jared Wolfe Photography: Pregnancy is a beautiful and transformative time in a woman's life, and there's no better way to celebrate and remember this special period than with a dc maternity photography. Our experienced photographers know how to capture the natural beauty and glow of an expectant mother, creating images that are both elegant and timeless. Whether you would want to have your pregnancy photos taken in a traditional studio setting or in a more rustic outdoor location, we will help you create the perfect session to suit your preferences and style.
Corporate Headshots DC: In today's competitive business world, having a professional and polished image is more important than ever. Whether you're a business professional, entrepreneur, or job seeker, having a high-quality headshot can make a big difference in how others perceive you. Our team creates corporate headshots in dc highlighting your unique personality and professionalism. We understand the importance of a great headshot in making a positive first impression, and we will work with you to ensure that your headshots are both professional and eye-catching.
Professional Headshots DC: For anybody trying to grow in their business or career, a professional headshot is a vital tool. If you're a freelancer, actor, model, company owner, or other professional, having a strong headshot may help you stand out and provide a memorable first impression. Our group of expert photographers specializes in taking fashionable and polished headshots. We are skilled in capturing your distinct personality and sense of style so you stand out from the crowd. We can assist you with producing photographs that will leave a lasting impression, whether you require headshots for your website, LinkedIn profile, or marketing materials.
When you book a photoshoot with our family portrait studio, you can expect a personalized and professional experience from start to finish. To ensure that the finished photos accurately capture your distinct personality and style, our photographers will collaborate closely with you to fully grasp your goals and preferences. We have the knowledge and abilities to realize your idea, whether it is a more contemporary and artistic portrait or a more traditional and classic one.
We provide a variety of goods and packages to help you preserve and exhibit your priceless memories in addition to our photographic services. We provide everything you need to display your stunning family photos, from fine prints and albums to digital photos and personalized frames. Whether you're looking to decorate your home, create a special gift for a loved one, or simply relive your favorite moments, we have the products and services to meet your needs.
Don't let those precious moments with your loved ones slip away - book a photoshoot at our family portrait studio today and capture the wonderful memories that will last a lifetime. Our staff is ready to assist you in producing gorgeous and meaningful images that you'll cherish forever, whether you're commemorating a milestone, celebrating a special event, or just wanting to take lovely pictures with your family.Make an appointment for your picture session with us now, and allow us to assist you in capturing the love and bond that you have with your family.
0 notes
jcasablancastalent · 5 years
Photo
Tumblr media
A variety of headshots are important to have when booking a job, such as one with you smiling and a more serious one. This way, you can send different versions of your headshot depending on the type of project! ⁠ ⁠ #📷 @tregoos72⁠ ⁠ 🤩⁠ 😄⁠ 😏⁠ ⁠ #johncasablancas #jcmodel #jcactor #jctalent #model #modeling #actor #acting #headshot #smile #serious #photography #photooftheday #picoftheday #photographer #picture #photos #photoshoot #happy #portrait #yellow via Instagram https://ift.tt/2TCnQ6v
1 note · View note
superbeitmenotyou · 5 years
Photo
Tumblr media
Business images are a fantastic technique to make cash as a columnist—every kind of agencies and businesses need your competencies. finding out business images pricing, youngsters, may also be difficult firstly. if you’ve approved searching into how lots to can charge for business images, you could locate all of the diverse rate stages accessible a bit difficult and overwhelming. That’s since the time period “industrial photography” covers an important range of talents photograph gigs, from company headshots to beat spreads and lots of things in amid.
Most industrial portfolios don’t consist of an industrial photography expense checklist, seeing that there are such a lot of variables to accept as true with earlier than giving a adduce. but it surety's tremendous-vital to learn how to position together business photography prices so so that you can certainly and professionally explain to your customer exactly what they’re paying for and what to expect. being capable of absolving your commercial images appraisement will support you land those high-advantageous gigs so that you can retain building that excellent online images portfolio. The key to business images appraisement is knowing every little thing that goes right into a commercial photography job, and how tons its price. when you understand what these distinct inputs are, you’ll have a good deal more straightforward time identifying what your commercial photography quotes should be. We’ve put collectively this pricing commercial photography list to aid you to do just that! First Off—what is business images? The key issue that differentiates a commercial photo from other types of photographs is its intended exhaust. industrial photography is photography that might be used for some form of industrial goal, like generating money or publicity for a client. That’s diverse from whatever like family portraits or wedding images, which is supposed for personal consume. The way to fee business photography The key items of advice are sure you trust in your industrial images appraisement is the period of time you’ll expand on the shoot, including pre-shoot actions and submit-shoot editing and book basic; the number of photos your client wants; the measurement of your client; and the supposed exhaust of the files. Let’s examine these separately: Your columnist hourly rate Photographer expenses per hour are just one a part of the blueprint when it comes to business photography rates. make sure you nefarious your alternate the expense to your personal experience, your bounded place, for example, the average hourly fee in new york will doubtless be higher than the the normal hourly rate in Portland, and your goal anniversary revenue.
There are some good publications accessible to get you all started, your alternate commercial photography rate may still live the identical no rely on who your customer is. however you’re capturing for an abate mother-and-pop company, it’s no longer a good suggestion to bead this part of your ordinary professional picture shoot price per hour, on the grounds that you nevertheless, need to make a residing allowance. Don’t fret—there’s loads of allowance to alter your universal quote depending on the measurement and price range of your client, however, the alternate business images cost may still be constant across all your costs. Yet another important element to believe if you’re inserting collectively a quote for a client is what number of hours you predict to consume on the project earlier than and afterwards the specific shoot. whilst you could be actively taking images for hours, perhaps they have a sophisticated conception in mind that requires some planning, otherwise, you’re doing away shoot so one can steal a while to installation for. You’ll want to apply your hourly rate to the hours you predict to spend on planning as well. The same goes for the time spent on enhancing and book basic once the shoot is completed. in case you’re shooting a shiny journal advert, you’ll probably consume more time enhancing that photo than if you had been capturing a headshot for the web site team of the worker's web page. if you wreck down the amount of time that you just utilize actively working on this project from launch to conclude, you’ll be in a position to get a superb estimate of how many billable hours the the undertaking will lift. Variety of industrial pictures vital Expenditures to your commercial images jobs may still, also keep in mind how many pictures you’re expected to carry. here is involving billable hours, since it will, of direction, hold extra time to shoot and adopt a hundred pictures than it will lift to shoot and edit. Most of the finest business photographers encompass a value per picture of their quote. this could differ reckoning on the class of photography you’re working on. as an instance, might be you’re an artefact columnist and also you need to seize a ton of usual product photographs for an e-commerce web site. You surely won’t do a ton of modifying once you’ve comprehensive capturing since you can probably follow the identical adapt to the entire accumulation of photos. The industrial images rate per photo for this category of job shouldn’t be as excessive as, say, the can charge per image to bring five extremely edited, colossal, print-able data. A good way to be prepared the subsequent time a possible challenge comes to your means is to have a ballpark cost per picture worked out according to the different types of industrial images that you do. for example, that you could accept a value per photo latitude for e-business artefact images and a unique range for advertising images. That method, you’ll accept an industrial photography appraisement e-book already worked out and you 'll get a quote to your customer sooner! Meant spend Here is where which you could definitely alter your quote based on who exactly the customer is, and the way they plan to use them photographs. probably you’re a food columnist and you, in reality, are looking to work with that cool start-up manufacturer, but you understand they don’t accept the commercial photography funds of, say, McDonald’s. as long as you’re now not selling yourself short and you’re authoritatively bound that your alternate fee is covered, there’s no reason not to have in mind the client’s measurement and budget. If your photos can be in print—like in magazines, flyers, billboards or bus shelters—get a sense from your customer of how many copies of the picture might be dispensed. if they’re planning on operating a massive countrywide crusade, the photos may still be more costly to authorization than in the event that they’re simply getting in just a few baby native newsletters. in a similar fashion, if you know the images are an activity to be used in a big-name book, which you could cost a stronger commercial images rate for licensing. The client’s timeline for the usage of the photos should still additionally ingredient into your commercial photography prices. most skilled columnist rates consist of licensing for the pictures, now not actual switch of possession. That means, you still personal the photos and the customer can employ them as categorical on your contract. in the event that they need to spend the photographs for years, your commercial photography appraisement may still be larger then in the event that they have been to most effectively use them for one year. At last, which you can additionally confer with online calculators to get a rough appraisal of what your business photography fees should seem like. despite the fact, these are only a rough guide, and experience is definitely the most desirable teacher when it comes to identifying what skilled photographer expenditures are going to assignment foremost for you and your enterprise. Prove Your value It’s super crucial that you can return up your commercial photography costs with the quality assignment and a professional journey, and having an excellent web site is, without doubt, one of the optimum issues that you may do to sing their own praises your commercial photography assignment and let your competencies purchasers be aware of that they’re dealing with a significant export. which you can bet your customers are going to be looking in the course of the online portfolios of the entire photographers they contact, so you wish to be sure that yours stands out! If you don’t have a website yet, don’t fret. they are more straightforward than anytime to actualize if you select a site builder that can do all the abundant appropriation for you. You’ll need to opt for one with appealing subject matters so that you can customize to suit your personal brand id and elegant. It’s additionally a good idea to seek a website builder with client proofing performance—your industrial photography purchasers will adulation being capable of see photo proofs and talk with you without difficulty all in one vicinity. In case you’re no longer totally in a position accomplish, go for an internet portfolio option that lets you begin with a changeless balloon so that you should comedy round with it and make sure it’s pretty good health for you.  Ready to construct an internet images portfolio with a view to kick-start your commercial images career? We’ve received you coated. open your free balloon with layout these days! Now that you’re armed with the entire info you need to set your industrial photography fees, it’s time to get available and acreage some gigs!
2 notes · View notes
catholicartistsnyc · 6 years
Text
Meet: Emily Claire Schmitt
Tumblr media
EMILY CLAIRE SCHMITT is a NYC-based playwright. (www.emilyclaireschmitt.com and Twitter: @Eclaire082)
CATHOLIC ARTIST CONNECTION (CAC): What brought you to NYC?
EMILY CLAIRE SCHMITT (ECS): I'm originally from Cincinnati, Ohio and I did my undergrad at Saint Mary's College in Indiana.  I always hoped to move to New York and I was fortunate that a few things fell into place for me when I graduated.  I was accepted into the New School for Drama's MFA program directly from undergrad.  I had applied to schools all over the country, and this happened to be both my top choice and only acceptance letter.  My college boyfriend's family is from Staten Island, so he moved back home and we were able to stay together.  Now that boyfriend is my husband, so I'm here to stay.
CAC: What do you see as your personal mission as a Catholic working in the arts?
ECS: First off, I love this question.  I think about this a lot, and I always try to pray a bit before I start writing, even if what I'm working on isn't an overtly religious piece.  I believe that God wants to be present with us as we grapple with the world and, while I don't let religious doctrines limit the content of my writing, my writing is always filtered through a worldview that God exists.  
A great deal of my art is critical of the institutional Church, but I'm still very insistent that I am a Catholic writer, as opposed to a formerly Catholic writer. There is a fundamental difference between someone who critiques from within and someone who has left the Church and is describing the experience that caused them to leave.  This distinction is supremely important to me.
I believe my vocation as a writer is to be a tool for God to express Themself in the world.  Sometimes this means representing the beauty of God's world, but more often than not it means shining light on that which is not in alignment with the Divine, whether within secular society or within the Church.  I hope that my work makes both religious and secular people uncomfortable.  I hope it makes them wonder what God thinks about them.
CAC: Where have you found support in the Church for your vocation as an artist?
ECS: I've been extremely fortunate to have made great connections with fellow Catholics in the arts.  I've worked with Xavier Theatre and Film, a Jesuit theater company, and they produced a showcase of my play "The Chalice" at the Stonewall Inn.  This was one of the highlights of my career thus far, an intersection of the Catholic and secular world that was truly fulfilling.
CAC: Where have you found support among your fellow artists for your Catholic faith?
ECS: It's a mixed bag.  Grad school was not a positive experience for me in terms of acceptance. After 16 years of Catholic education, I was suddenly in a secular world and I made a lot of mistakes in terms of how I presented myself.  I was wrestling with my faith privately, but fiercely defending it publicly, which is never a good tactic.  I didn't feel safe.  I no longer work with anyone from grad school, and that's best for all of us.
However, post graduation I have really found an artistic community with people of all faiths.  I have frequent collaborators who are non-Catholic Christians, members of other faiths, atheists, and agnostics.  I've found a particular home with The Skeleton Rep, a theater company that focuses on "building modern myth."  My religious beliefs really mesh with their interests, despite being a completely secular company.  I am currently developing a musical with them. 
CAC: How can the Church be more welcoming to artists?
ECS: Stop policing our content.  The vocation of an artist is to observe, critique, and respond.  It is not the vocation of the artist to simply listen and accept doctrine without question.  This means that there is an essential tension between the work of being an artist and the work of being a practicing Catholic.
As an artist, I don't have the luxury of keeping my disagreements with the Church private. I promise I'm listening and it's possible to change my mind. Please be patient with me.
CAC: How can the artistic world be more welcoming to artists of faith?
ECS: I think this is a difficult question because in most of the instances where people have been unwelcoming to me, it's because they have been hurt in some serious way by the Church.  It's taken me a long time to accept that, while I have not personally hurt them, I am part of an institution that has and it's not unreasonable for them to ask me to answer for that.
I try to be clear about my beliefs and about why I have chosen to remain in the Church.  I also try to articulate how I'm striving to make the Church better, while remaining firm in my support of Her.  I have to be both gentle and unafraid about how and why I disagree with the secular world as well.  Once again, I promise I'm listening and it's possible to change my mind.  Please be patient with me.
CAC: Where in NYC do you regularly find spiritual fulfillment?
ECS: I'm a bit of a parish hopper.  When I first came to NYC I fell in love with Saint Francis Xavier, near Union Square.  Their Young Adults Group was a great community for me, but after moving to Brooklyn and back I'm not as involved as I once was.  I've become more interested in traditional, more formal, liturgies. Saint Joseph of Yorkville is a beautiful neighborhood parish that has a highly reverent modern mass.  There are so many families with children there, it gives me great hope.  And the pastor is the man who reported on McCarrick so that's no small thing.... I like a priest I can respect, for obvious reasons.
When I'm feeling in particular need of deep ritual, I do love a Latin Mass. Saint Agnes by Grand Central is a great place to go for that. 
CAC: Where in NYC do you regularly find artistic fulfillment?
ECS: I already mentioned The Skeleton Rep, but one thing they do which I love are monthly artist salons.  Artists will get together, drink wine, and read new work, either a full play or short plays based on a prompt.  There is no formal feedback, just a chance for the writer to hear her play.  And afterwards we have a party.
CAC: How have you found or built community as a Catholic artist living in NYC?
ECS: Connecting with Brother Joe Hoover at Xavier Theater has really connected me with a great community of Catholic artists.  He has a way of making connections and bringing together a dynamic and diverse group of people with a huge variety of perspectives on the faith.  If you ever get the chance to work with them I highly recommend it.  Joe is a fantastic playwright and actor in his own right.
CAC: What is your daily spiritual practice?
ECS: I wish I had a better one...  I pray every day before I write.  My husband and I pray together before meals.  Recently, we've been doing a daily reflection before bed.  It's just one of those Little Blue Books you pick up from your parish during Advent, but it's been great.
CAC: What is your daily artistic practice? And what are your recommendations to other artists for practicing their craft daily?
ECS: I try to write for an hour every morning after working out and before leaving for work. This is really my sacred time: after my husband leaves, freshly showered, and place to myself.  It's short but it's extremely important.  And I can't stress enough the value of praying before you write. 
CAC: Describe a recent day in which you were most completely living out your vocation as an artist. What happened, and what brought you the most joy?
ECS: The most recent Skeleton Rep salon was on New Year's Eve.  I wrote a short piece for the event which spoke of my Catholic faith and it's relationship to the mission of the company.  Afterwards, another artist present pulled me aside to talk about how he is a Catholic as well but had stopped going to Church.  He was interested in going back, so we spent a long time talking about why I felt it was important for young Catholic artists to be in the faith and engage with it from the inside.  The whole conversation was so fulfilling for me. 
CAC: You actually live in NYC? How!?
ECS: I need to be completely up front and say that I have been incredibly privileged in terms of financial support from my family.  This is something we do not talk about enough in the arts.  My parents paid my rent and my tuition while I was in school and I am debt-free.  I'm also married to someone with a traditional career who contributes the majority of our income.  I am so incredibly fortunate it's not even funny.  
CAC: But seriously, how do you make a living in NYC?
ECS: Even with the financial support, I do have a full-time day job.  I don't know how anyone would make rent or buy groceries without one.  I work in social media marketing, which is great because it's mostly all remote.  I've also been nannying for my cousin's baby so making that sweet side cash.
It's a lot of work, and keeping my passion afloat on top if it, and making sure it remains my focus rather than just a "hobby" is a constant battle.
CAC: How much would you suggest artists moving to NYC budget for their first year?
ECS: I can't give a great answer to this, because it's so varied and I was in school when I started.  But consider that your monthly rent is likely to be over 1K no matter where you live.
CAC: What other practical resources would you recommend to a Catholic artist living in NYC?
ECS: I can't recommend enough reaching out to Xavier Theater for professional connections.  In terms of headshots, Joe Loper is a former classmate of mine who does a great job and is very reasonable. http://joeloper.com/
CAC: What are your top 3 pieces of advice for Catholic artists moving to NYC?
ECS: 1.) Don't rush finding your people.  It's a big city and it takes time.
2.) Exercise.
3.) Go to confession.  Why make art with sin on your soul?
1 note · View note
wannawrite · 6 years
Text
The Royals - PWJ
who?: Wanna One’s Park Woojin genre:  🌺 type: bullet point TW: gang au
blog navigator.
The Royals PJH | PJH2 | KD | KD2
part one / two
mafia! AU 
what secrets does Woojin hide up in the clouds?
kind of a soft mafia! AU for a change of scenery. Thanks for requesting anon!! Hope you guys anticipate more.
Tumblr media
disclaimer: pictures used do not belong to me and credit goes to their original owners everything that is written here is purely fictional DO NOT READ IF TRIGGERING
~
Park Woojin
code name: 6 
nickname: Sparrow
by his friends and enemies alike 
he’s deadly quiet, demure even 
Woojin is the pilot in charge of The Royals fleet of private jets 
no one has a clear headshot of Woojin as he always has on a dramatic fighter jet pilot’s mask 
rumour has it that he’s only a boy of 20 years of age, has taupe coloured skin kissed by sun rays and a key identification factor 
his snaggletooth 
but that’s the only word on the street 
Woojin was the most low-key member of The Royals, keeping his profile low and head hidden 
no wonder he was called Sparrow 
always flying off before anyone’s hand could clasp around him 
fast 
nimble 
brown haired 
speckled 
another gossip column mentioned he was a good friend of Lee Daehwi, another member of The Royals 
and that was how he became a key figure of the secret society realm 
Woojin had always dreamt of being a pilot 
when he was young, he had wanted to be an airforce pilot
lol how things have changed 
his mother was a head officer in Incheon’s flight control tower 
that was where the influence came from 
his father had been a pilot
a little love story bloomed from there 
obviously, they married and had two children 
it was a happy family of four, all enthralled by the idea of jetting through the clouds 
one day, a tragic accident had claimed his life 
Woojin was a bit too young to remember specific details but he had a calling to fulfil his late father’s legacy 
he wanted to succeed his father’s wish for him to continue flying planes
a national airforce fighter jet pilot would have been ideal 
but he was happy to settle for the position of head pilot of Seoul’s notorious mafia 
Woojin was sent to pilot school when he was a middle school student
only when he was a high schooler did he start practicing and honing his skills with real planes 
small delivery planes that is 
cute 
Woojin was the kind of guy who took photos with every plane he had piloted
every single one of them were kept in an album in his mother’s house 
yes, his cute snaggletooth was featured in ALL of them 
his sister would scrapbook some candids and send them over to The Royals HQ in Seoul 
sparrow’s scrapbooks were the talk of the town 
Woojin was in charge of a lot of things 
excessive things 
almost too much 
but he loved his job and lived for the thrill of flying 
whether it was a goods plane, passenger plane, he just adored piloting planes 
oh and it wasn’t exactly hard to renew his license when he had contacts in the business 
occasionally, Woojin traveled back to his flying school to assist teachers 
or take more classes since he is 20
still gaining knowledge 
well, that’s how you got to know him 
when you were young, your grandfather would tell you stories of the days when he was a fighter pilot 
a pilot 
he met your grandmother during his flying days as well 
fascinated by his stories and tales, you too were determined to pilot plane 
it was difficult 
your parents did not favour this idea and your grandparents were your only supporters 
in secret, they coached you on whatever knowledge they had 
wings, propellor...fly! 
you spent hours and hours poring over ancient plane encyclopedias, enriching your mind and spurring on your motivation 
and then one day, your grandparents came home with an enrolment letter 
into pilot school :D 
you screamed and cried with joy
then worried about how your parents would react but your grandparents gave 0 f*cks 
they the realest 
‘just go, we know people there who will treat and teach you with the best of their abilities.’ 
and so you started to attend classes in secret
hehe hehe 
it was all good 
your coach loved you 
your love for the planes and even theory classes was unexplainable 
not one of your parents knew what you did almost every day after school
until you nearly crashed a plane and were severely hurt
that’s when your parents found out and damn...it wasn’t exactly a pretty scene 
the amount of yelling and screaming was enough to shake the whole hospital 
you had cried so much that the IV drip had to be replaced TWICE
idk if its a thing but it now is 
though it took some time, they finally opened up to the idea of piloting 
they managed to see things from a different perspective and wrap their head around it 
and now they fund your studies :D
okay, so now the fun starts  
you knew Woojin as Park Woojin, the guy from pilot school 
your classmate 
who is kind of too advanced for your class 
Idk what game he playing
if someone asked you about him, you would say y’all talked 
but not a lot 
considering his attendance had been quite hectic and intermittent
and you did hear some fishy theories about him from the gossipers 
Jenna claimed that he worked with the local gang, operating planes so he could import drugs from overseas 
sounds a bit dumb but believable ?? 
you don’t trust Jenna anyway 
but her words linger in your mind, unable to dissipate 
just simple, harmless gossip 
another source stated Woojin was a spy for the FBI, making sure not a single soul could leave the country so easily with their own plane 
crazy 
how much time do these people have?
you noticed that Woojin was close to many of the staff and instructors 
definitely not trying to start your own theory here 
he was a person to be curious about, intriguing 
just your luck, Woojin ended up being your flying buddy for a term 
idk hOw thIS WORKS SO IT GONNA WORK THIS WAY
quite an awkward pairing if you must say
but your instructor liked how you trusted your theory work and equipment, eyeing every reading carefully
he thought it would be a good match for Woojin, who trusted his own instinct but was a firm and steady pilot 
day one: silence filled the space between the two of you 
the instructor gave y’all an hour to read the manual, study, bond whatnot
yet, half of that was spent buried in books and theory videos 
safety books 
going over basics 
reading about gear care 
even though you knew Woojin was an expert in those aspects
there was just no talking 
shhhh 
quieter than your school’s library 
that was most people’s impression of the quiet and cunning little sparrow, tricking people into thinking he’s demure and secretive
see, that’s how all those ludicrous rumours are born 
finally, you just HAD to engage in conversation 
THE SILENCE WAS JUST TOO STRANGLING 
but he was hard to talk to 
woojin barely said three words before the conversation lapsed 
you pressed your lips together, unsure of what to do 
you started to scribble, drawing cartoonish planes and clouds 
that was when Woojin commented that your plane looked more like a bird
‘pfp...see if you can draw any better,’ you challenged 
Woojin took another pencil from your case
‘Try me.’
And so that’s how you spent your ‘study session’ 
Since you do have quite a competitive spirit 
You brought a whole ass portfolio of drawings the next day 
Just so Woojin could get a taste of his competition 
Banter, banter 
After leafing through yours, he pulled out his own digital file of sketches 
And his own little scrapbook 
+2 for artistic talent 
soon, the piles of non-work related books were growing in your locker
there were a couple more pencil scribbles on the picnic table
other students found rough paper with sketches almost everywhere 
even on mock test papers 
eventually, your instructor realised something was terribly off when both of you failed the month’s test 
as punishment, you guys had to do clean up duty 
and more homework 
taking away your hands-on flying class for a month 
but it was fun 
partners in crime play together 
partners in crime die together 
so slogging after class was much more enjoyable in the company of each other 
plus, the ice cream feast after was always rewarding
you guys would purposely take a long route to the bus stop to pick up convenience store ice cream 
woojin would try to convince you that his flavour choice was much better 
time was killed with the playful banter at the bus stop 
many times you found yourself wanting to ask about all the rumours circulated about him 
but you realised that Woojin was that kind of guy who would make a joke out of it 
and take words like those lightly 
bonus!
he had a great sense of humour 
variety king 
days resembling those wore on 
but you were never tired of them 
and it seemed like he wasn’t either 
every occasion was constantly different from the previous one 
another flavour of ice cream to sample
more areas to ‘clean-up’ 
messing around with the coaches 
days at the academy were always divergent 
so it was weird when Woojin didn’t show up one day 
that time you managed to shrug off the anxieties and assumptions 
then, he disappeared for two following days 
that you definitely couldn’t ignore 
you didn’t attend the same school as him and no one else at the academy knew him very well 
when coaches were questioned, they seemed uninterested but assured of his safety 
‘Don’t worry,’ said your instructor. ‘Woojin knows his way around things. Perhaps he just hasn’t been feeling very well.’ 
mhm 
you watched how his irises flickered from yours to the surroundings 
and back 
any trace of uncertainty was erased when you took a second glance 
‘Anyway, I have his assignment folder. Could you pass it to him for the summer? Thanks.’
‘Make sure it gets to him safely. Don’t pass it to a third party.’ 
his footsteps quickened as they grew more and more out of earshot 
you scoffed in disbelief, feeling the effects of being alone while everyone else was buddied up 
how were you ever going to find Woojin? 
His mobile phone was turned off too
or he just wasn’t responding to your texts 
you: hi woojin 
you: I have your work file  
you: can we meet so I can pass it to you? 
you: you okay? haven’t seen you in a while 
woojin hadn’t read those messages 
Sighing, you closed the application and continued with your classes 
forcing yourself to pay attention to content was harder when Woojin wasn’t around
every moment you swore that your phone buzzed in your pocket
unfortunately, it was just your imagination 
there were no texts from him even at the end of the day 
you fell asleep that night with an uneasy heart full of worries 
woojin: yeah of course 
woojin: Thanks btw 
woojin: sorry about it 
woojin: aha you won’t see this asap since its 2am 
woojin: but tell me where to find you tomorrow 
~
what a debonair comment from him 
is that even an adjective to describe a phrase? 
your face feels a bit warm 
stop making a big deal out of nothing!!! 
you: how about 11am at the Starbucks near my place
you text him the address 
shockingly, Woojin’s response is immediate 
Woojin: see you :) 
a smiley face 
what does this mean? 
he’s happy to get his work, that’s what it means 
calm down 
the red alarm clock reads 8.30am 
there’s time to freshen up 
there’s also time for you to imagine every possible outcome of this meeting 
which is taking place outside of class time
would it be awkward? 
strange? 
don’t overthink this
after much deliberation, you make it to Starbucks 15 minutes before the agreed time 
all is calm at your seat near the window, drink on your table 
and clutching Woojin’s file so closely as if it would grow legs and run away 
then, two young men approach your table 
‘Hi,’ one of the voices said. ‘You’re here for Woojin, aren’t you?’ 
you’re hesitant to answer, wondering what sort of relationship Woojin would have with them 
your reply is cut off by the other guy speaking 
he chuckles 
‘I’m Jeno and he’s Jaemin. We’re Woojin’s friends and he sent us to collect his work,’ he says. 
you observe how he hides his hands behind his back, how he presses his lips together too often 
liar
Don’t give it to a third party 
pass it to him personally
Jaemin’s hands reach for the file. ‘Now if you just-‘
‘I don’t think so.’ Your words slice through the tension. ‘Woojin is supposed to collect it from me himself.’ 
The message sent is clear
Don’t f*cking touch this file 
Jaemin’s jaw seems to clench while Jeno begins to crack his knuckles 
‘Well,’ Jaemin begins, his arms retreating. ‘Woojin has something to attend to so he called us to get it. It was a last minute arrangement.’ 
Jeno scrolls through his phone, pulling up ‘Woojin’s’ texts 
The messages are indeed are from a contact called Woojin, he lacks an avatar though 
‘I’ll message him right now.’ 
however, messages from him rain in
Woojin: hey if anyone with the names Jaemin and Jeno talk to you, get away 
Woojin: i didn’t send them, we don’t get along 
Woojin: even if you don’t encounter them, I need you to go home this instant 
Woojin: I’m so sorry, I can’t meet you today 
his texts confirm your suspicions but now you’re curious about his relationship with them 
How long could teenage boys hold grudges for anyway?
you: i’m talking to them rn
you: ...what should I do 
you: jaemin’s pretty adamant about getting your stuff 
Woojin: shit 
Woojin: one of my friends is nearby, his name is Jaehwan 
Woojin: go with him 
Woojin: now, go to the barista and tell them you want a cupful of whipped cream with chocolate sauce 
you look up from your phone, a bit taken aback by the information 
your guard is well up now 
‘Well?’ Jaemin almost hisses before he catches himself
‘Hmm, I’m waiting for his reply. He wants me to order him a coffee.’ 
your heart wants to thump out of your chest
even your lips begin to dry
something just isn’t right 
your brain and body aren’t reacting positively 
As the last word leaves your lips, the barista whispers into a well-concealed in-ear 
out of the corner of your eye, you catch one of the employees ripping her apron off and tossing it into the bushes 
she was outside of the store, clearing dishes from the outdoor seating area 
when she draws close, she makes a noise about not seeing you in a long time 
but her eyes watch Jaemin and Jeno in the back 
It’s to throw them off 
Good plan 
who came up with it? 
the two mysterious boys grow increasingly irritated
it shows clearly in their actions 
furious whispers
side glares 
constant drumming of fingers 
the girl’s eyes flicker over your shoulder for barely a second 
an unnoticeable look 
‘Jaehwan’s here,’ she says just as the bell chimes
‘You’re in good hands now.’ 
her smile is genuine and so is her embrace 
you and Jaehwan don’t even exchange a slither of a greeting 
in fact, you can’t catch your breath as the same lady ushers you out through the kitchen door 
it’s only a matter of seconds before Jaemin and Jeno are alerted of your disappearance 
that’s when their rage would be on the loose
Jaehwan frantically bundles you into a nearby car 
honestly, you aren’t convinced he’s the best company 
perhaps better than the previous Js 
‘Where’s Woojin?’ you heave out. ‘I need to talk to him.’ 
Jaehwan begins to exit the parking lot, sunglasses on. 
‘Sorry, reaching him will take a while. And, sorry for the suddenness of everything. You must be...surprised.’ 
‘That’s an understatement,’ you blurt out. ‘I’m utterly confused and terrified!’ 
‘I don’t even know where I’m going and who’s taking me!’ 
all your emotions are in a jumbled mess 
being with Jaehwan feels like sitting in a lion’s den but with a metal cage surrounding you
safer but not wholly 
staying with Jeno and Jaemin would mean the lions would have devoured you before your feet even reached the bottom of the pit
Woojin didn’t answer any of your calls
Jaehwan notices your hopeless attempts at contacting your friend
‘I’m sorry, he isn’t available at this moment.’ 
‘And why the hell not! He told me to meet him! He doesn’t have any plans! He could’ve come to meet me! I just want to give him his work file!’ 
The outburst makes you feel a ton better 
Like the bag of bricks, you carried had been carrying was thrown at someone you hated 
Suddenly, the road sign reading ‘Incheon Airport’ catches your attention 
especially when Jaehwan seems to be en route
‘Why are we headed to the airport?’ You question, unsure if you want an answer 
‘We’re going to see Woojin,’ Jaehwan replies casually. 
‘W-w-we’re going out of the country?’ The stutter is inevitable 
Jaehwan appears to furrow his brow as if puzzled 
‘Um...yeah. Jihoon and Sejeong will deal with your accommodation,’ he informs, not that it is very helpful 
Who and who? 
‘Does Woojin even tell you anything?’ Jaehwan asks as he drives to the airport carpark 
He shakes his head in disapproval when you answer with a ‘no’
‘I don’t have my passport,’ you say
your words don’t even affect Jaehwan, he simply says that a Kang Daniel has got you covered 
again, who, what and how? 
‘C’mon. Let’s go. I’m sure Woojin has all the answers to your questions.’
~
Jaehwan pushes your back, urging you to move quicker 
‘What the hell,’ he curses under his breath. ‘Hurry up, I see...uh, J and J allies.’ 
there isn’t time 
Plus, you don’t have the courage to turn around and glare them in the eye 
Contrary to your assumption, Jaehwan skirts around the ‘Private Jet’ counter and settles for a commercial flight queue 
he says something about it being too risky to dispatch one of his company’s private jets 
the jets come as no shock 
After all, Woojin does needs his planes
it’s likely his close friends are all like-minded and share the same interests 
Jaehwan speedily dashes for the ‘First Class’ row 
he speaks to the counter staff in such a quiet tone even you can’t decipher his words 
‘Don’t worry about your passport, I have connections.’ 
don’t actually do this!!!
that makes your stomach clench and twist with nerves in the most horrid manner 
somehow 
your passport appears 
it isn’t a replica, it isn’t a faux document
it’s in the flesh 
...did someone break into your house?
‘Yeah,’ Jaehwan answers your unspoken question. ‘Of course someone stole this from your tabletop. You need to get better security.’ 
you face blushes red in embarrassment 
'I’m a pilot,’ you manage a counter attack
your new friend only chuckles 
jumping snaking immigration queues is something you could accustom yourself to
ahhh, the luxuries 
soon, you’ll be able to join the ‘CREW ONLY’ line 
Before you know it, you’re seated in the first class section of a reputable airline 
woah 
this is new 
you don’t want to know where Jaehwan or Woojin or whoever has the money to pay for all this 
then again, these people own a fleet of private jets 
Jaehwan advises you to chill and enjoy the flight 
but the bundle of nerves only tightens in your stomach 
You’re on your way to Hong Kong 
with a small bag of essentials and the clothes on your back
Jaehwan’s in the same situation
yet he seems so used to it, there’s no point being anxious 
tbh you’d rather pilot the plane than ride in it 
why would Woojin be in Hong Kong? 
did he fly there on impulse? 
does he even know the route? 
he did just receive his pilot licence......
no, he couldn’t possibly 
it sounded like a hasty getaway 
A sudden change of plans
as if he was in trouble.....
Who are these people Jaehwan mentioned?
Is Woojin hiding anything from me? 
Of course he is! Jaehwan knows but he feels that only Woojin has the right to tell me 
besides, he’s asleep 
how can he be sleeping at a time like this? 
it’s barely 2pm 
the day is going just fine 
hopefully, things start looking up from here 
Hong Kong...
Woojin...
I’m coming for ya
46 notes · View notes
thephototeam1 · 2 years
Text
Event Photographers in London - The Photo Team
Tumblr media
Looking for Event Photographers in London?
You've come to the right place. We are a multi-award-winning photography company, specializing in events, conferences, exhibitions, headshots, and all other types of photography. We have been shooting events and portraits for more than 10 years as The Photo Team, however have a combined experience of over 35yrs within the company. We have the best photographers working with us, so have every faith in booking our services. Read on to learn more. The most important step in finding an event photographer is to do your research.
The best Event Photographers in London will provide you with high-quality, professional photographs. They'll capture the ambiance of any event. You'll have an amazing digital archive of images and video, which you can use to share with family, friends and colleagues for years to come. Whether it's a wedding, business conference, or charity ball, they can deliver stunning images and video. There's a London photographer for every type of event and every budget!
Your event is a special day, and it deserves to be documented in the best way possible. Hiring a professional photographer can capture the memories of your guests. Choosing a professional is a good idea to ensure the photos you receive will be of the highest quality. After all, the photographs you'll receive will be something that you can cherish for a long time. You can't afford to take chances with your event, and you don't want to regret it!
You can hire a London event photographer who will take stunning pictures of your attendees and the occasion. They can also provide footage for your social media campaign and future promotional activities. Choosing a photographer who has a passion for photography can help you create an amazing experience for your clients, and you'll be pleased with the results. This is one of the best ways to ensure you get the best photographs at your next event! And you'll be happy that you chose an Event Photographer in London!
You'll also want to consider the size and scope of your event. A London event photographer should be able to cover all the necessary details of a big event. It's worth hiring a team that's experienced in different types of photography, and has a great reputation in the business. It's important that you choose the right person for the job. Ultimately, you'll have great images to remember your event.
Choosing an Event Photographer is an important part of making sure your event is documented in beautiful and timeless ways. A London photographer should be able to tell the story of your event and the guests and the atmosphere of the occasion. Whether it's a corporate party, a wedding, or a birthday, a great photographer can capture the moment in a way that will make the event unforgettable. You will have a digital library of images and video to keep as a reminder of the event for years to come.
A professional event photographer should be able to capture the essence of an event. Their work will tell the story of the occasion. The photographs and videos will be a lasting memory of the event. This is a great way to create a lasting impression on the guests. A professional London event photographer will have a large variety of experience and can handle any kind of event. You will never be disappointed with the results of his work.
The Photo Team understands the different kinds of events and their clients' aims. We ensures that personal briefs are as detailed as possible and meet the clients' expectations. Moreover, we are available for events all over the UK. A great photographer will not just capture the moment, but also preserve the ambiance of the event. The quality of the pictures and videos of an event is a crucial part of the success of a business.
When it comes to capturing the ambiance of an event, a professional photographer should be hired. A photographer who can create a visual memory of the event will give you the memories of the occasion. In addition to this, the images and videos should be edited to create a memorable experience for the guests. And if you have a budget, you'll want to choose an experienced event photography company in London.
1 note · View note
mana-sputachu · 7 years
Note
Hello!! I just stumbled across your blog. Your art is very gorgeous and inspired me to start drawing humans. Do you by any chance have any beginning tips? I have absolutely no idea how to start and I’d appreciate any tips, like how to get proportions right, how to use references/where to find them, etc. As an animal artist and 2bg fan; good job on your work. I especially think your headshot of Max Black was lovely ;w;
Aaaah! First of all, thank you! The fact my art make you decideto drawing human figure makes me really happy! Also sorry for the late reply, itried to decide what to write… i don’t think i’m the best person to ask tbh,99% of the time i don’t know what i’m doing orz but i’ll try to give you a fewgeneral tips that i hope will help you!
One thing you will always readabout drawing tips is drawing from life: take your sketchbook and go outsidesketching people and places. And it’s a very good advice but… i can alsounderstand that awkward feeling when you do it because people may notice youdrawing (seriously, i’ve been able to do it only in airport or during aflight). So, while this is still a good advice, here’s an alternative: CroquisCafé is a youtube channel that posts videos with variousnaked models in it and with a great variety in body shapes (mostly females).It’s perfect to do some gesture drawing and it’s also good when you’re artblocked. There are also a lot of sites (like this one) that offer the same service but usingpictures, you can set up what kind of models you want and the time that has topass between each picture. I personally prefer Croquis Café but i’ll put itthis option too, just in case.
Study anatomy. Whatever kind ofstyle you want to achieve, knowing anatomy is important. There are a lot ofgood tutorial here on tumblr, and a lot of blogs reblog them along withreferences and other useful stuff (like these: 1, 2 and 3). I also have one where i reblog tutorials and stuff, here, if you need it! I dunno what you’re tryingto achieve, like drawing human portraits or super realistic figures orcomic-like figures, but either way find a good anatomy book to study, like Burne Hogarth or Andrew Loomis books.
Speaking of anatomy, a good exercise i used to do wheni was attending school of comics was this one: take a picture from a magazine(naked or underwear models are better, so you can see the anatomy), put a sheetof transparent tracing paper (or just a new layer if you’re using photoshop)and trace the figure trying to stylize the body in simpler geometrical shapes:
Tumblr media Tumblr media
This way you can learn to drawthe body in simpler shapes, this also helps when you have to move the figures,pose them or put them in a scene. This trick also work for singlebody parts (head, hands, feet, ecc):
Tumblr media
This way you can learn to stylizethe human figure into simpler shapes, creating your own “mannequin” to move andpose as you please!
 References: Google is yourfriend. No, literally! When i need a pose, i usually google it (and beingweirdly specific about it). Another good resource are stock photos: DeviantArthas a lot of users that offer their pictures as free stock to use for drawings( @senshistock is a good start point, her gallery is huge and offers various kindof pictures. She ha salso an app that can be used for gesture drawing: http://www.senshistock.com/sketch/ ).Be sure to read their disclaimer tho! Also, the already mentioned art blogs oftenreblogs references pictures.As for how to use them, you cantry the excercise i mentioned before, check proportions, learn about variousbody shapes, and, once you’ll get better, you can use them and mix them for theposes you need it, and also collect them so you’ll have a good resource foreverything (not only human figures, but dresses, animals, backgrounds, weapons,ecc). Another good exercise is to look at your reference and sketch it, usingthe mannequin.
I’m sorry if this post looks short or not really goes into deep,but since you said you’re at the beginning i tried to keep it simple and coversome basics, but if you need anything else just let me know (even via pvt) andi’ll see what i can do once i have more time!
121 notes · View notes
studioserra · 4 years
Text
What Is Commercial Photography? Great Tips to Get Started
Tumblr media
Commercial photography is popular these days. But it’s not all about large teams creating images in a studio for big ad campaigns.
This article will help you understand what commercial photography is and how to get started.
What Is Commercial Photography?
Commercial photography includes a wide range of photography niches. It’s the creation of high-quality images for commercial purposes.
Let’s break down the common types of commercial photography. Then we will get into all the commercial photography tips you need to know to succeed in this industry!
Common Types of Commercial Photography Shoots
Fashion Photography
This is what most people think of when you say “commercial photography”. This type of photography can be in a studio or outdoors. It can involve paid models who are modeling a product.
For fashion photographers, each shoot is unique. Knowing how to pose people and give direction is a huge skill. This is very useful for this type of work.
Product Photography
This is another large category. You can take product photos in a studio or outdoors. Photographers mostly shoot in a studio, so they have a solid backdrop for online use.
Doing this type of work will require that you get familiar with working in a studio. This includes controlling studio lights to get the desired effects on your products.
Food Photography
Yes, this category of commercial photography may remind you of people taking photos of their food for Instagram. But it can be a great niche to do as a professional!
You’ll want to work with a food stylist to get the food looking its best for the camera. This type of work also involves editorial restaurant shots. This means being quick to set up your equipment in a restaurant during a set time frame. At the same time, you need to create lighting that makes the food look enticing yet natural.
Environmental Portraits
This means taking photos of people in their work environment.
For example, you may go to a plant nursery and take photos of some of the employees tending to the plants. You’re showing how the nursery maintains a high level of care for their products.
You’ll be working on-the-go most of the time. And you may need special permissions for some sites.
Headshots
The most common type of commercial photography out there is a headshot. These photos promote the person’s products or services.
Headshot sessions are quick and fun. But they require a connection with your subject and giving them direction on posing in a limited time frame.
Commercial Architectural Photography
This category involves photographing a space for commercial purposes. This can be to showcase the architect’s design or to show the appeal of a retail store.
As with food photography, you’re often working with tight time frames. And you’re shooting around the flow of customers.
With spaces, including a few well-placed people in the shot often helps to give the photo life and context.
Tips for Commercial Photography
Commercial photography is an exciting yet competitive industry. Some of the world’s best known photographers are commercial photographers. Here are 6 commercial photography tips to help you get a leg up in the commercial world.
Keep Your Network Active
As a commercial photographer, having a network of good professional relationships is very helpful. Not only is it good for referrals, but it also serves as a pool of resources.
Don’t own a studio but need one for a shoot? Maybe you know a commercial photographer who has his own studio and can rent it to you by the day. Have a fashion shoot coming up and need help? Maybe you know a stylist or a make-up artist that can come in and create the look the client needs.
Even knowing people with connections to different locations can be helpful. When a certain spot works as the perfect backdrop for your client’s vision, you can ask them.
Having a healthy and active network is essential. You won’t be calling on strangers from an online listing to help in your shoots. You’ll be calling on trusted professional colleagues who you know can do a great job.
Be Professional
Professionalism will get you further in life than you can imagine. As a photographer, bring your A-game to every photo shoot. Build a positive reputation, encourage trust, and help you with your efficiency.
You may be a great photographer, but work ethic, motivation, and ambition will differentiate you from others.
Being professional includes being reliable. Always be punctual (try to be ten minutes early), be well-prepared, and meet deadlines. It is also important to be polite and respectful to everyone, and having a good attitude.
Being reliable will ensure that you are hired again, and again! A good way of making sure that you meet all expected demands is to keep a daily planner and take lots of notes. Consolidate your work schedule so that everything that you do is timely and happens according to your plan.
Keep notes on important information that you may otherwise forget. The key to success as a commercial photographer is organization.
Keep Your Gear Up To Date
It is true that in general, good photography depends on the photographer and not the gear. However, commercial photography is a little different.
In order to compete with the intense and demanding market, you have to make sure your gear is up-to-date. Commercial photography adapts to the latest technological advances. What was once industry-standard a year ago is no longer applicable.
Commercial photography likely involves printing. Having a camera with the highest number of  megapixels you can afford is an absolute must. Sharpness is also important, so make sure your lenses are equipped with luxury glass.
Many commercial photography job postings and castings will require a gear list from you. Be ready to send them what you work with. This isn’t exclusive to camera gear. Clients will also probably ask you what editing software and computer you use.
Bonus Tip: If you can’t afford brand new gear, don’t worry! Develop a relationship with a rental shop and rent what you need.
Stay in Tune With Trends
Like being updated with technology, being aware of current photography trends is equally important.
Every year, every season even, brings new aesthetic trends in the photography world. With the social media climate, these trends are even more important than ever.
It is your responsibility to research and be informed on what kind of visual images are popular.
Find Your Distinct Voice
To stand out from your competitors, you need to offer something different. This can be in the form of your personal style, unique concepts, and methodology.
Allow your artistic voice to shine through your work. If you do this, you will attract jobs that compliment your work style. You will get projects that you enjoy and can excel in, which will result in a mutually beneficial outcome.
Creativity Is Important
When working with your distinct style, remember to be creative. No client wants a copy of some other image. So, try something different and create something fresh. Think of how you can depict the product in a completely new way.
It is important to be aware of your client’s needs and vision. A client usually has a specific purpose in mind when requiring photography for commercial use. So keep these in mind, and experiment in moderation so that your work still fits your client’s needs.
No Rookie Mistakes
Commercial photographers can not be amateurs. When a client hires a commercial photographer, they have certain expectations about quality. There is no mercy for hobbyist behaviour in commercial photography. Rookie mistakes will not be forgiven at a certain level. So, make sure you work out all of those kinks.
Education is extremely important. Keep developing your skills. Take seminars, classes, read books, experiment on your own time, and you’ll soon make sense of those photography basics.
How to Get Paying Clients
Once you are ready to start paid projects, how can you get clients? Follow these 3 tips to get your next project!
Have a Solid Portfolio
Portfolios are of the utmost importance in this industry. Ensuring you have a solid body of work should be one of your top concerns if you want to be a photographer.
This is especially true in commercial photography. The industry is so heavily saturated with photographers trying to break in. Having a compelling portfolio will set you apart from other commercial photographers.
But how do you create a portfolio? Include a variety of images in your portfolio that showcase different styles, subjects, and apertures. Don’t be afraid to try some creative portraits. Have some shots from both a studio and natural light.
Also, only include your absolute best work. Don’t add too many similar images or too many photographs of the same subject and arrangement. Your portfolio should be concise and diverse.
Keep Business Cards and Contact Information on Hand
Commercial photography is built on relationships and information. You should carry photography business cards and up-to-date contact information wherever you go.
Pass this around to anyone who seems relevant, because you never know who you might meet on set.
Recommendations Speak Loudly
Photography is a relationship-oriented profession. Recommendations make a huge impact. Be professional, meet expectations, and prove that you are worth recommending.
When choosing between two commercial photographers, a client will always go for the one with a positive recommendation.
Working With the Client
So you found a client. But what next? As a professional commercial photographer, there are some things to keep in mind while in talks with potential clients.
Be Extremely Clear on Your Client’s Needs
Transparent communication is vital in setting up honest expectations. You don’t want to set high expectations and then be unable to meet them.
So, here are some questions you should ask your clients.
Does your client need a set number of photos?
Do they have a hard limit on their budget that may affect how much you can do for them?
Are they working with a tight deadline?
What sort of specific shots do they already have in mind and must get?
Do their requests need any special props, locations, wardrobe, consultants, etc?
Double Check Your Quote to Include All Possible Costs
It’s common for the client of a commercial photography shoot to ask for certain extra things. These can be arrangements, items, or assistance, all of which add to the final cost.
Be sure to think through your quote. Make it clear to your client that if extra costs arise, the final rate may change. This is where open communication becomes vital to avoid unmet expectations.
When creating your initial quote, you may want to include a base rate that assumes certain items. Then show them line items for possible additional costs. These will depend on their needs or requests.
Discuss Intended Photo Use and Usage Rights
The use that commercial photos will get is very different from, say, family portraits. These photos are not going on someone’s wall or being sent to Grandma in a card. They will be for commercial use to generate more income for a company.
This means that your rates will need to be quite different. Be sure to have a discussion with your client about what type of use their photos will get. The different commercial use of your photos should affect the rate and also the shoot process.
For example, a client might use a headshot for social media profiles and a postcard flyer. But, they might use an environmental portrait to promote a new luxury resort.
This can be in a national print magazine, online ads, and the resort’s website. In this case, the headshot client may need lower resolution files. And they will create less profit from the photos. But the resort will require high-resolution images that they’ll use across the country. This will help them to generate a significant amount of income.
Once you understand your client’s needs, get specific. This includes what rights the contract grants them. Adjust your rates depending on these needs.
Conclusion
Commercial photography can seem out of reach. That’s only if you think of it as large, complicated shoots for international corporations.
When taking a closer look, there are lots of needs, big and small, that fall under the umbrella of commercial photography.
One way to get started is to begin with small jobs. As you grow more comfortable with the process, you can then build on them and accept larger requests.
0 notes
onlinemarketinghelp · 5 years
Photo
Tumblr media
High-Paying Side Gigs That Earn $1,000 or More Per Month https://ift.tt/3cxfENI
Everyone wants to earn extra money, but is it possible to earn $1,000 per month on the side? After interviewing several people who did it, it’s safe to say that many people can. With the right combination of skill, marketing, and elbow grease, you can land a $1,000-per-month side gig.
In this article, we outline 11 side hustles that allow real people to earn at least $1,000 per month. 
Based on interviews with real people with side gigs, we also suggest side gigs where you can earn at least $25 per hour, which makes $1,000 per month achievable in many cases.
If you're looking for more ideas, check out our 80 Ways To Make Money At Home.
High-Paying Side Gigs
Flip for a Profit
Sell Your Great Credit History
Freelance Writing
Photography
Book Gigs as a Musician
Dog-Sitting
Hustle for Charity
Event Marketing
Digital Marketing
Providing Virtual Assistant Services
A Few Other Self-Employment Options
Don't Be Afraid to Work for Someone Else
How Will You Earn $1,000 Per Month on the Side?
Flip for a Profit
The key to earning a profit? Buy low and sell high. But is that maxim easy to put into practice? And can you earn a $1,000 per month just by buying high and selling low?
Even people with no particular expertise can scour big-box stores for items on clearance that they can sell for a profit on Amazon. This guide actually gives great detailed instructions on how you can do this. The amount of money you actually earn from retail flipping will depend a lot on how good you are at finding deals, the amount of money you have to put into your inventory, and your ability to sell items quickly.
People with expert knowledge in specific areas may actually have a leg up when working to flip items for a profit. Many mechanics will buy broken-down cars, and then sell the parts for a profit and the rest of the car for scrap pricing.
Another surprisingly lucrative field for experts is sneaker flipping. Omar of Raleigh, North Carolina is an avid sneaker collector, and rarely lets a pair go. However, he has made up to $200 per pair of sneakers that he resells, and suspects he could earn up to $1,000 per month if he didn’t love his collection so much.
The easiest way to flip for a profit? Get your materials for free. Robert A. of Raleigh, North Carolina does landscaping work as a primary job. If he sees a pile of metal or appliances out on the curb, he’ll load up his truck and takes the metal to the recycling center to get scrap value for it. A full truck bed usually brings $75 to $100 (or more if he has a lot of copper in the load). In a good month, he can earn up to $1,000 per month just from scrapping, though his usual take is lower.
Whether you’re flipping garbage, used clothing, sneakers, cars, or houses, buying low and selling high is a great way to earn money on the side. To flip for a profit, you will need to know prices well, and you need to be able to take advantage of deals as they come to you. Generally, you’ll also need a vehicle to make flipping profitable.
However, with enough expertise, becoming a flipper can yield $1,000 per month on the side.
Sell Your Great Credit History
Do you have a credit card with a perfect credit history, and less than a 15% utilization ratio? Then you could sell authorized user positions on your credit card to people looking to establish or improve their credit history. This is called selling tradelines, and it’s one of the most lucrative side hustles available for cash-strapped people.
So how do you go about selling tradelines? Well, you could go around door-knocking and trying to find people willing to buy, but you might have better luck signing up as a credit partner with an established tradeline sales company like Tradeline Supply.
Right now, you can earn $50 to $300 in commission for every authorized user position that you sell through Tradeline Supply. Each credit card may allow you to add between 5 and 20 users.
If you’ve never heard of selling tradelines you might be a bit skeptical about this. I know that I certainly was. Here are a few answers to questions you might have:
Authorized users stay on your account for two months, but your entire credit card history goes on their account.
Authorized users never get access to your account. You’ll know the name of the person buying the tradeline, but they won’t know your name. Tradeline Supply does screening to make sure that the person buying your tradeline is legitimate.
Authorized users never know the account number for the tradeline you’re selling. Even when the tradeline shows up on their credit report, the account number is a digital code produced by your bank.
Selling tradelines is completely legal. Congress, the CFPB, banks, and credit bureaus all know about the practice. They don’t like it, but it is squarely legal.
Interested in selling your credit history? Sign up with Tradeline Supply to get started or read our Tradeline Supply review.
Freelance Writing
Whether you read articles about finance, weightlifting, cooking, or art history, someone had to write the article. Some online writers write as a hobby, and don’t earn much (or anything) from their writing. However, plenty of sites hire freelance writers to produce compelling written content for their audiences.
As a freelance writer, you might also write newsletters, magazine or newspaper articles, technical manuals (for software or machinery), white papers, or even “website copy” which is just the words on a company’s website.
Freelance writers build up their client base in a variety of ways, but the most important factor for writers is to have a portfolio of articles in a specific niche. Valerie Rind, a corporate lawyer by day and a freelance writer on the side explains, “You can’t get a writing gig without experience, and you can’t get experience without an established portfolio. I knew an editor at a reputable publication and we agreed that I would write an article for free. Once I had an article with a byline, it gave me a small amount of credibility. After that, I never wrote for exposure.”
A common method for building up a portfolio is to start a blog, and then reach out to other (slightly larger) bloggers to request a guest post on their site. Another method that people commonly use is creating a free portfolio on a site like Contently.
Once you have established some credibility, you have to start pitching your services. Rind recommends, “Sell yourself with confidence, even if your experience is a bit thin.”
When you find someone who is interested in your writing, you’ll need to talk rates. Rates for articles vary widely by niche, and by the budget of the company hiring you.
A blog site will generally pay anywhere from $30 to $200 per article (depending on the niche and your experience). Other sites, including media sites or large company sites can often afford to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars per article. Finding clients (especially higher-paying clients) is the key to earning $1,000 or more each month.
We break down 14 ways that you can get paid to write here. Or, jump into this online course about how you can earn more money writing >>
Photography
If you own a great camera, and you’ve developed your photography skills, you may be able to earn $1,000 or more each month while working on the side.
Dana Haynes of Raleigh, North Carolina started her first foray into paid photography by shooting friends’ weddings in college. Though she only earned $500 per wedding at first, she recommends wedding photography as a great niche for budding photographers, especially those with young and broke friends.
“Weddings are the one time your peers are willing to spend a significant amount of money for photography,” Haynes told The College Investor. She also added that most young people probably have a built-in network of friends getting married.
Years after shooting weddings, Haynes revived her photography practice after watching hours of free online courses, and photographing friends and family for free. People would share her pictures on Facebook, and she slowly got her name out. These days, Haynes works primarily in birth photography, but as a hustler, she also photographs families, bands, marketing, headshots, and weddings on the side.
Although Haynes and many other photographers will get their start by shooting for friends or family, Haynes recommends keeping your business as professional and well-managed as possible. “You're photographing these incredibly meaningful moments in folks' lives. You want to make sure you're making contracts, managing dates/times, and keeping up with communication. You can’t compromise on the business end if you want to serve people well,” Haynes said.
Book Gigs as a Musician
Making it in the music industry is a notoriously difficult career choice, but Beau Humphreys and his band Saturday Night Superstars have turned their musical passion into a lucrative side gig. Since playing music on the side means giving up weekends, the band opted to become a wedding band which allows them to command higher paydays.
Every member of Saturday Night Superstars has over a decade of performing experience under their belt, so comparing their income to your early-stage income might not be completely fair. That said, the band members can easily clear $1,000 each when they perform at least two gigs in one night.
As a keyboard player, Beau actually has the opportunity to book side gigs with his side gig. He’ll often play keyboard during the wedding ceremony, cocktails, a dinner, and of course perform with the band that night. When clients book the whole range, Humphreys may be able to earn $1,000 or more in a single night.
As with many of the other side jobs in this article, booking the first paying gig can be the most challenging for musicians looking to earn extra coin. The Saturday Night Superstars band’s first paying gig was a Christmas party at a golf course. The owner of the golf course heard the band’s showcase a few weeks earlier, and took a chance on booking them. Humphreys recommends that musicians should always promote their services to their existing networks. A great website with quality audio and video goes a long way in making you easy to book, but word-of-mouth marketing is the most important way to market your services as a band.
Dog-Sitting
If you have more love than your pet can handle, being a dog-walker or a pet-sitter can actually bring in decent money. Kristin Larsen, founder of Believe in a Budget, side hustles as a pet-sitter in her local area. She simply signed up with a local pet-sitting company and found plenty of work. Generally, she makes $20 for a 20-minute walk (she walks dogs during her lunch breaks), and up to $60 per night when she takes care of animals overnight.
Depending on the locations of your clients, pet-sitting may allow you to serve several clients every hour. However, that’s not guaranteed to be the case. To maximize your earnings, you need to be careful to work for a company that won’t send you all over the globe to serve clients.
A flexible schedule is ideal for this side hustle (plenty of people want dog-walkers while they are away at work), but it can work with a variety of schedules as long you can meet your clients’ needs.
If you can’t find high-paying employment with a local pet-sitting company, you could try finding clients through Rover.com. You could also start your own business. Crystal Stemberger, founder of Crystal’s Cozy Care Pet Sitting, started with a few simple posts on her HOA’s website and a few free ads on Craigslist. Over time, her business grew to become one of her primary sources of income.
Check out Rover, a new app that allows you to become a dog sitter online. Get started with Rover here.
Hustle for Charity
Dan Batcha, an independent insurance agent based out of Blaine, Minnesota, has put his side hustle times towards making the lives of military veterans a little better. Back in 2015, Batcha and his then-girlfriend decided to give gifts to people in need rather than exchanging gifts with each other.
With a little boost from social media, they managed to collect and give nearly $7,000 worth of gifts to five military families. Since then, they’ve managed to serve as many as 10 families with $11,000 worth of gifts in a single season, through an organization called Civilian Santas.
Throughout the year, Batcha spends around five hours per month speaking to local churches and schools and organizing the back end of the non-profit. Closer to Christmas he’ll spend up to 15 hours per week coordinating wishlists, meeting families in need, collecting gifts and donations from others, and of course delivering gifts to the families.
Growing Civilian Santas hasn’t been easy, but Batcha has big dreams for the organization. In the next year, he’d like to serve a Thanksgiving meal for veterans and their families, and host a Christmas in July 5K run to raise awareness and funds for the cause.
Event Marketing
Lillian Karabaic, a financial educator (who often dresses as David Bowie), and founder of Oh My Dollar! is no stranger to high-paying side hustles. One of the higher-paying options is event marketing or becoming a “promo girl.” This side job involves setting up events, talking to people, and handing out samples. If you’ve ever seen a Bud Light girl or girls driving around the Red Bull vehicle and handing out drinks, you’ve seen a promo girl.
Karabaic says that vendors from yoga studios to alcohol brands hire people to promote their products. It can be a lot of fun, and very lucrative for an outgoing person, but the hours tend to be late nights (for alcohol) or weekends for other vendors.
If you know someone who is already an event promoter, you might want to ask them to put you in touch with their primary contact. Otherwise, you can find your first few events through Craigslist gigs, Facebook (search your city and brand ambassador) or event staffing agencies (search for event staffing in your city).
Once you have an established relationship with certain brands or with certain staffing agencies, you’re likely to get called on again.
Digital Marketing
When someone says they are a digital marketer, it could mean that they post ads on their personal Facebook page. It could also mean that they are a skilled web designer who optimizes web pages. However, most people who make money on the side as digital marketers help small business owners enhance their digital presence.
If you’re interested in becoming a digital marketer, you can pick up a lot of the skills by starting your own blog, and learning through trial and error. However, if you’re more interested in expediting the process, we recommend taking a digital marketing course. Based on feedback from happy customers, we recommend the following courses:
Facebook Side Hustle Course (specifically designed for beginners)
Market Motive’s Digital Marketing Certification Training Course (Note: You do not need a certification to be a digital marketer, but this is a comprehensive course.)
Providing Virtual Assistant Services
A close cousin to digital marketing is providing virtual assistant services. Virtual assistants provide digital support (including web support, digital marketing services, and more) to bloggers and other business owners. A virtual assistant can be a jack-of-all-trades or extremely specialized. Their job is to make the lives of other business owners easier and better.
Many virtual assistants work with just a few clients, so their time commitment is relatively small. One virtual assistant that I interviewed responds to customer inquiries and complaints for a small retailer that lists products on Amazon. In general, she works no more than four hours per week.
Many other VAs eventually find that being a VA is more lucrative than their day job, and quit to take their VA activities full-time.
If you’ve ever run your own website, you probably have some of the skills necessary to become a virtual assistant, and with the help of Google, you can probably figure out the rest. That said, some courses that expedite your learning process include:
​$10K VA
​Become a Pinterest VA TODAY!
A Few Other Self-Employment Options
When seeking sources for this article, we found several people who earned high hourly wages from their side gigs, but didn’t earn $1,000 per month. Most of these people reported that they didn’t want to take on more clients, but they felt that they could if they put in the effort.
Based on these reports, we determined it’s reasonable for someone to earn $1,000 per month on the side if a person were willing to put in the time to build up and maintain their client base.
Here are some ideas:
Tutoring (especially for LSAT and other test preparation options - even online tutoring options)
Teaching music lessons
Hairstyling (surprisingly, cosmetology work including hair-braiding may require a license in your state; however, those that did this work privately reported earning between $25 to $30 per hour after costs)
Catering or baking for private events (depending on the laws of your state, you may have to do all catering from an industrial kitchen or have a business permit)
Car washing or detailing
Voiceover acting (consider this quick-start guide if you’re interested)
Don't Be Afraid to Work for Someone Else
As a general rule, the most lucrative side gigs require self-employment, self-marketing, and maybe even entrepreneurship. That said, it is possible to earn a wage from a side job while working for someone else.
Most people we interviewed averaged just four to five hours per week at their side job, so they didn’t always earn $1,000 per month. However, several people came close to $1,000 and they all earned at least $25 per hour. They also had to report that it seemed likely that they could work more if they needed the money.
Here are some ideas:
Officiating sports (high school level or higher)
Tending bar
Waiting tables (especially on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights)
Teaching group fitness (especially bootcamp classes, though this may require a personal training license in your state)
Tax preparer (February through April only)
Interpreting for hospitals (especially sign language and Chinese though the necessary languages could vary by region)
Providing courier or delivery services (like DoorDash)
Driving as a partner for Uber or Lyft (driving during peak times can probably boost your effective hourly rate)
Nursing (working just a few shifts each month allows you to keep your license active in many states)
How Will You Earn $1,000 Per Month on the Side?
The $1,000-per-month side gig is likely within your reach, if you’re willing to put in some time and effort on the front end. In general, you’ll have to be willing to promote yourself, pitch prospective clients, and develop valuable skills to get started. However, once you have an established side gig, it becomes easier to keep the revenue coming in without excessive effort (aside from actually doing your job).
Side gigs require you to give up your most valuable asset (your time), so it makes sense to try to maximize your earnings from the gig.
That said, a lot of people report that their side hustle isn’t just about making extra money. Some people are building skills that are necessary for a promotion in their primary career. Stay-at-home parents report that they love getting out of the house and using a different part of their brain. Others report that they enjoy having a paying artistic outlet, even if they earn more or have a steadier income through their day jobs. Honestly, things like free alcohol, free bagels, and free t-shirts enticed many people to start side hustles.
No matter your motivation, starting a side gig is a great way to get ahead financially. Just be smart about starting it, so you don’t waste your time earning less than minimum wage.
The post High-Paying Side Gigs That Earn $1,000 or More Per Month appeared first on The College Investor.
from The College Investor
Everyone wants to earn extra money, but is it possible to earn $1,000 per month on the side? After interviewing several people who did it, it’s safe to say that many people can. With the right combination of skill, marketing, and elbow grease, you can land a $1,000-per-month side gig.
In this article, we outline 11 side hustles that allow real people to earn at least $1,000 per month. 
Based on interviews with real people with side gigs, we also suggest side gigs where you can earn at least $25 per hour, which makes $1,000 per month achievable in many cases.
If you're looking for more ideas, check out our 80 Ways To Make Money At Home.
High-Paying Side Gigs
Flip for a Profit
Sell Your Great Credit History
Freelance Writing
Photography
Book Gigs as a Musician
Dog-Sitting
Hustle for Charity
Event Marketing
Digital Marketing
Providing Virtual Assistant Services
A Few Other Self-Employment Options
Don't Be Afraid to Work for Someone Else
How Will You Earn $1,000 Per Month on the Side?
Flip for a Profit
The key to earning a profit? Buy low and sell high. But is that maxim easy to put into practice? And can you earn a $1,000 per month just by buying high and selling low?
Even people with no particular expertise can scour big-box stores for items on clearance that they can sell for a profit on Amazon. This guide actually gives great detailed instructions on how you can do this. The amount of money you actually earn from retail flipping will depend a lot on how good you are at finding deals, the amount of money you have to put into your inventory, and your ability to sell items quickly.
People with expert knowledge in specific areas may actually have a leg up when working to flip items for a profit. Many mechanics will buy broken-down cars, and then sell the parts for a profit and the rest of the car for scrap pricing.
Another surprisingly lucrative field for experts is sneaker flipping. Omar of Raleigh, North Carolina is an avid sneaker collector, and rarely lets a pair go. However, he has made up to $200 per pair of sneakers that he resells, and suspects he could earn up to $1,000 per month if he didn’t love his collection so much.
The easiest way to flip for a profit? Get your materials for free. Robert A. of Raleigh, North Carolina does landscaping work as a primary job. If he sees a pile of metal or appliances out on the curb, he’ll load up his truck and takes the metal to the recycling center to get scrap value for it. A full truck bed usually brings $75 to $100 (or more if he has a lot of copper in the load). In a good month, he can earn up to $1,000 per month just from scrapping, though his usual take is lower.
Whether you’re flipping garbage, used clothing, sneakers, cars, or houses, buying low and selling high is a great way to earn money on the side. To flip for a profit, you will need to know prices well, and you need to be able to take advantage of deals as they come to you. Generally, you’ll also need a vehicle to make flipping profitable.
However, with enough expertise, becoming a flipper can yield $1,000 per month on the side.
Sell Your Great Credit History
Do you have a credit card with a perfect credit history, and less than a 15% utilization ratio? Then you could sell authorized user positions on your credit card to people looking to establish or improve their credit history. This is called selling tradelines, and it’s one of the most lucrative side hustles available for cash-strapped people.
So how do you go about selling tradelines? Well, you could go around door-knocking and trying to find people willing to buy, but you might have better luck signing up as a credit partner with an established tradeline sales company like Tradeline Supply.
Right now, you can earn $50 to $300 in commission for every authorized user position that you sell through Tradeline Supply. Each credit card may allow you to add between 5 and 20 users.
If you’ve never heard of selling tradelines you might be a bit skeptical about this. I know that I certainly was. Here are a few answers to questions you might have:
Authorized users stay on your account for two months, but your entire credit card history goes on their account.
Authorized users never get access to your account. You’ll know the name of the person buying the tradeline, but they won’t know your name. Tradeline Supply does screening to make sure that the person buying your tradeline is legitimate.
Authorized users never know the account number for the tradeline you’re selling. Even when the tradeline shows up on their credit report, the account number is a digital code produced by your bank.
Selling tradelines is completely legal. Congress, the CFPB, banks, and credit bureaus all know about the practice. They don’t like it, but it is squarely legal.
Interested in selling your credit history? Sign up with Tradeline Supply to get started or read our Tradeline Supply review.
Freelance Writing
Whether you read articles about finance, weightlifting, cooking, or art history, someone had to write the article. Some online writers write as a hobby, and don’t earn much (or anything) from their writing. However, plenty of sites hire freelance writers to produce compelling written content for their audiences.
As a freelance writer, you might also write newsletters, magazine or newspaper articles, technical manuals (for software or machinery), white papers, or even “website copy” which is just the words on a company’s website.
Freelance writers build up their client base in a variety of ways, but the most important factor for writers is to have a portfolio of articles in a specific niche. Valerie Rind, a corporate lawyer by day and a freelance writer on the side explains, “You can’t get a writing gig without experience, and you can’t get experience without an established portfolio. I knew an editor at a reputable publication and we agreed that I would write an article for free. Once I had an article with a byline, it gave me a small amount of credibility. After that, I never wrote for exposure.”
A common method for building up a portfolio is to start a blog, and then reach out to other (slightly larger) bloggers to request a guest post on their site. Another method that people commonly use is creating a free portfolio on a site like Contently.
Once you have established some credibility, you have to start pitching your services. Rind recommends, “Sell yourself with confidence, even if your experience is a bit thin.”
When you find someone who is interested in your writing, you’ll need to talk rates. Rates for articles vary widely by niche, and by the budget of the company hiring you.
A blog site will generally pay anywhere from $30 to $200 per article (depending on the niche and your experience). Other sites, including media sites or large company sites can often afford to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars per article. Finding clients (especially higher-paying clients) is the key to earning $1,000 or more each month.
We break down 14 ways that you can get paid to write here. Or, jump into this online course about how you can earn more money writing >>
Photography
If you own a great camera, and you’ve developed your photography skills, you may be able to earn $1,000 or more each month while working on the side.
Dana Haynes of Raleigh, North Carolina started her first foray into paid photography by shooting friends’ weddings in college. Though she only earned $500 per wedding at first, she recommends wedding photography as a great niche for budding photographers, especially those with young and broke friends.
“Weddings are the one time your peers are willing to spend a significant amount of money for photography,” Haynes told The College Investor. She also added that most young people probably have a built-in network of friends getting married.
Years after shooting weddings, Haynes revived her photography practice after watching hours of free online courses, and photographing friends and family for free. People would share her pictures on Facebook, and she slowly got her name out. These days, Haynes works primarily in birth photography, but as a hustler, she also photographs families, bands, marketing, headshots, and weddings on the side.
Although Haynes and many other photographers will get their start by shooting for friends or family, Haynes recommends keeping your business as professional and well-managed as possible. “You're photographing these incredibly meaningful moments in folks' lives. You want to make sure you're making contracts, managing dates/times, and keeping up with communication. You can’t compromise on the business end if you want to serve people well,” Haynes said.
Book Gigs as a Musician
Making it in the music industry is a notoriously difficult career choice, but Beau Humphreys and his band Saturday Night Superstars have turned their musical passion into a lucrative side gig. Since playing music on the side means giving up weekends, the band opted to become a wedding band which allows them to command higher paydays.
Every member of Saturday Night Superstars has over a decade of performing experience under their belt, so comparing their income to your early-stage income might not be completely fair. That said, the band members can easily clear $1,000 each when they perform at least two gigs in one night.
As a keyboard player, Beau actually has the opportunity to book side gigs with his side gig. He’ll often play keyboard during the wedding ceremony, cocktails, a dinner, and of course perform with the band that night. When clients book the whole range, Humphreys may be able to earn $1,000 or more in a single night.
As with many of the other side jobs in this article, booking the first paying gig can be the most challenging for musicians looking to earn extra coin. The Saturday Night Superstars band’s first paying gig was a Christmas party at a golf course. The owner of the golf course heard the band’s showcase a few weeks earlier, and took a chance on booking them. Humphreys recommends that musicians should always promote their services to their existing networks. A great website with quality audio and video goes a long way in making you easy to book, but word-of-mouth marketing is the most important way to market your services as a band.
Dog-Sitting
If you have more love than your pet can handle, being a dog-walker or a pet-sitter can actually bring in decent money. Kristin Larsen, founder of Believe in a Budget, side hustles as a pet-sitter in her local area. She simply signed up with a local pet-sitting company and found plenty of work. Generally, she makes $20 for a 20-minute walk (she walks dogs during her lunch breaks), and up to $60 per night when she takes care of animals overnight.
Depending on the locations of your clients, pet-sitting may allow you to serve several clients every hour. However, that’s not guaranteed to be the case. To maximize your earnings, you need to be careful to work for a company that won’t send you all over the globe to serve clients.
A flexible schedule is ideal for this side hustle (plenty of people want dog-walkers while they are away at work), but it can work with a variety of schedules as long you can meet your clients’ needs.
If you can’t find high-paying employment with a local pet-sitting company, you could try finding clients through Rover.com. You could also start your own business. Crystal Stemberger, founder of Crystal’s Cozy Care Pet Sitting, started with a few simple posts on her HOA’s website and a few free ads on Craigslist. Over time, her business grew to become one of her primary sources of income.
Check out Rover, a new app that allows you to become a dog sitter online. Get started with Rover here.
Hustle for Charity
Dan Batcha, an independent insurance agent based out of Blaine, Minnesota, has put his side hustle times towards making the lives of military veterans a little better. Back in 2015, Batcha and his then-girlfriend decided to give gifts to people in need rather than exchanging gifts with each other.
With a little boost from social media, they managed to collect and give nearly $7,000 worth of gifts to five military families. Since then, they’ve managed to serve as many as 10 families with $11,000 worth of gifts in a single season, through an organization called Civilian Santas.
Throughout the year, Batcha spends around five hours per month speaking to local churches and schools and organizing the back end of the non-profit. Closer to Christmas he’ll spend up to 15 hours per week coordinating wishlists, meeting families in need, collecting gifts and donations from others, and of course delivering gifts to the families.
Growing Civilian Santas hasn’t been easy, but Batcha has big dreams for the organization. In the next year, he’d like to serve a Thanksgiving meal for veterans and their families, and host a Christmas in July 5K run to raise awareness and funds for the cause.
Event Marketing
Lillian Karabaic, a financial educator (who often dresses as David Bowie), and founder of Oh My Dollar! is no stranger to high-paying side hustles. One of the higher-paying options is event marketing or becoming a “promo girl.” This side job involves setting up events, talking to people, and handing out samples. If you’ve ever seen a Bud Light girl or girls driving around the Red Bull vehicle and handing out drinks, you’ve seen a promo girl.
Karabaic says that vendors from yoga studios to alcohol brands hire people to promote their products. It can be a lot of fun, and very lucrative for an outgoing person, but the hours tend to be late nights (for alcohol) or weekends for other vendors.
If you know someone who is already an event promoter, you might want to ask them to put you in touch with their primary contact. Otherwise, you can find your first few events through Craigslist gigs, Facebook (search your city and brand ambassador) or event staffing agencies (search for event staffing in your city).
Once you have an established relationship with certain brands or with certain staffing agencies, you’re likely to get called on again.
Digital Marketing
When someone says they are a digital marketer, it could mean that they post ads on their personal Facebook page. It could also mean that they are a skilled web designer who optimizes web pages. However, most people who make money on the side as digital marketers help small business owners enhance their digital presence.
If you’re interested in becoming a digital marketer, you can pick up a lot of the skills by starting your own blog, and learning through trial and error. However, if you’re more interested in expediting the process, we recommend taking a digital marketing course. Based on feedback from happy customers, we recommend the following courses:
Facebook Side Hustle Course (specifically designed for beginners)
Market Motive’s Digital Marketing Certification Training Course (Note: You do not need a certification to be a digital marketer, but this is a comprehensive course.)
Providing Virtual Assistant Services
A close cousin to digital marketing is providing virtual assistant services. Virtual assistants provide digital support (including web support, digital marketing services, and more) to bloggers and other business owners. A virtual assistant can be a jack-of-all-trades or extremely specialized. Their job is to make the lives of other business owners easier and better.
Many virtual assistants work with just a few clients, so their time commitment is relatively small. One virtual assistant that I interviewed responds to customer inquiries and complaints for a small retailer that lists products on Amazon. In general, she works no more than four hours per week.
Many other VAs eventually find that being a VA is more lucrative than their day job, and quit to take their VA activities full-time.
If you’ve ever run your own website, you probably have some of the skills necessary to become a virtual assistant, and with the help of Google, you can probably figure out the rest. That said, some courses that expedite your learning process include:
​$10K VA
​Become a Pinterest VA TODAY!
A Few Other Self-Employment Options
When seeking sources for this article, we found several people who earned high hourly wages from their side gigs, but didn’t earn $1,000 per month. Most of these people reported that they didn’t want to take on more clients, but they felt that they could if they put in the effort.
Based on these reports, we determined it’s reasonable for someone to earn $1,000 per month on the side if a person were willing to put in the time to build up and maintain their client base.
Here are some ideas:
Tutoring (especially for LSAT and other test preparation options - even online tutoring options)
Teaching music lessons
Hairstyling (surprisingly, cosmetology work including hair-braiding may require a license in your state; however, those that did this work privately reported earning between $25 to $30 per hour after costs)
Catering or baking for private events (depending on the laws of your state, you may have to do all catering from an industrial kitchen or have a business permit)
Car washing or detailing
Voiceover acting (consider this quick-start guide if you’re interested)
Don't Be Afraid to Work for Someone Else
As a general rule, the most lucrative side gigs require self-employment, self-marketing, and maybe even entrepreneurship. That said, it is possible to earn a wage from a side job while working for someone else.
Most people we interviewed averaged just four to five hours per week at their side job, so they didn’t always earn $1,000 per month. However, several people came close to $1,000 and they all earned at least $25 per hour. They also had to report that it seemed likely that they could work more if they needed the money.
Here are some ideas:
Officiating sports (high school level or higher)
Tending bar
Waiting tables (especially on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights)
Teaching group fitness (especially bootcamp classes, though this may require a personal training license in your state)
Tax preparer (February through April only)
Interpreting for hospitals (especially sign language and Chinese though the necessary languages could vary by region)
Providing courier or delivery services (like DoorDash)
Driving as a partner for Uber or Lyft (driving during peak times can probably boost your effective hourly rate)
Nursing (working just a few shifts each month allows you to keep your license active in many states)
How Will You Earn $1,000 Per Month on the Side?
The $1,000-per-month side gig is likely within your reach, if you’re willing to put in some time and effort on the front end. In general, you’ll have to be willing to promote yourself, pitch prospective clients, and develop valuable skills to get started. However, once you have an established side gig, it becomes easier to keep the revenue coming in without excessive effort (aside from actually doing your job).
Side gigs require you to give up your most valuable asset (your time), so it makes sense to try to maximize your earnings from the gig.
That said, a lot of people report that their side hustle isn’t just about making extra money. Some people are building skills that are necessary for a promotion in their primary career. Stay-at-home parents report that they love getting out of the house and using a different part of their brain. Others report that they enjoy having a paying artistic outlet, even if they earn more or have a steadier income through their day jobs. Honestly, things like free alcohol, free bagels, and free t-shirts enticed many people to start side hustles.
No matter your motivation, starting a side gig is a great way to get ahead financially. Just be smart about starting it, so you don’t waste your time earning less than minimum wage.
The post High-Paying Side Gigs That Earn $1,000 or More Per Month appeared first on The College Investor.
https://ift.tt/2SHdpOY March 05, 2020 at 11:20AM https://ift.tt/2LhLfs9
0 notes
Text
What To Wear On Your Headshots Shoot Day
Tumblr media Tumblr media
      How should I dress for a headshot photo?
  First impressions count. Headshots are indispensable in business and life. There is the only one you, also because you're original, your head should represent that. We can help make this happen. You need to choose the right wardrobe.
    Here are several tips to help when preparing for your headshots session
  Profession
Tumblr media
What is it for?. The business you work determines the way you dress. That is true for any work the same way it's right for your headshot. Do you dress up or casually at work?. A lawyer may put on a suit and tie while a celebrity can wear a button-up or v neck. A construction supervisor may wear a plaid collared shirt and jeans. You need to consider your profession.
  Dress like you
Your headshot is going to make the first impression that will help land that job you desire. It is essential your headshot is present and looks like you. Always wear what makes you comfortable and confident. Show off your personality and maintain a professional look for your profession.
  Colours
Tumblr media
Wear colours that bring out your eyes and enhance your skin tone and hair colour. We want your eyes to pop because they are the very first thing someone notices about your headshots. What colours make you feel beautiful, handsome or comfortable in?
  Keep away from distraction
  Avoid busy patterns of clothes that distract from the eyes and face since your eyes must be seen first.
  Your eyes are a window to your soul! For the ladies, it is a fantastic idea to put on a top that brings out your neckline and keep jewellery to a minimum. Do not wear turtlenecks or scarves, seeing your neckline will make you look slimmer. Wear what you love, like clothes which make you feel confident and comfortable! You have to love it. The camera will show the confidence on your face. If you are wearing what you love, you will like your headshots.
  We want you to appreciate your headshots!
  Still stressed about your photo shoot session?
Tumblr media
If you are concerned about what to wear, bring a variety of outfits. We will help you in selecting the smartest choice for your style and profession. We love what we do and wish to help. Most of all, we expect this is a fun adventure that will build trust and help you be ready to take on your profession! Please remember you do not have to be photogenic, or feel photogenic. It is our job as photographers to put you at ease and provide a great experience.
  Here are some headshots tips for a photo shoot session
Is it time to update your headshots? Maybe it's been too many years since your photo shoot? Regardless of your reasoning, here are several tips to assist you to nail it this time around.
  Hire a professional photographer to help get the headshots you need to make an excellent first impression. Look like a version of you that represents the goal you want to achieve for your headshot. Look well-rested, alive and energised!
  Rest
Get the proper rest leading up to your headshot session. Getting adequate sleep will help you in lots of ways. EyeMedia Studios can do magic with editing and light, but the life in your eyes needs to show in your portraits,
  Hydrate
Drink lots of water on the day your headshots photoshoot and be sure to moisturise your skin. Adequate rest will also reduce the appearance of fine lines.
  Prep
Tumblr media
You should style your hair like you would wear it to an important meeting, but better. Don't shampoo the same day, second-day hair consistently styles better. That said, don't overuse hair products on wash day or you'll struggle with styling it. For medium to long hair. You should use the evening before to pre-blow-dry some volume in.
  You only need your hair to stay looking good for your headshot. Use a light hold hair spray so that you can control it and touch-up during outfit changes.
  Buy some shine spray to lightly spritz over your entire head once you're finished styling. This may give your hair life and reflection. Plus, you can spritz your brush with hair spray to help tame flyaway hairs.
  Preview
Before you book your headshot session with EyeMedia Studios. Snap a few selfies in your styled looks. They'll be nowhere near the quality of the photo shoot, but you'll get an idea to whether you like the look.
  If you are looking to book professional headshots, please get in touch. We have some of the best headshots photographers in London.
0 notes
behindthebeautylens · 4 years
Text
How Beauty Photoshoots Help Your Modeling Portfolio
When it’s time to show your portfolio to an agency, they will be looking for key shots every model should have in their book. One of these images will include a solid beauty shot that has the power to grab an agent or a client’s full attention and book your next job. This photo should be the first photo in your portfolio and accentuates your facial structure, your personality, and your ability to control expression. Here are four reasons why beauty photoshoots will help your portfolio and why every model should have a strong headshot to add to their book.  
Your Beauty Shot is Your First Impression.
When an agency or a client opens up your book, the first photo they will see is your beauty shot or headshot. The first impression they will have is a clean, straightforward yet intimate gaze that has the ability to land you your next job. Essentially, it’s important to schedule a beauty photoshoot because it will create one of the strongest tools of persuasion in your book. Your beauty shot will also be displayed on your comp cards or “z cards,” so by putting your best headshot forward you already have a greater chance at capturing a client’s attention as they sift through options. 
Beauty Shots are Essential to Your Portfolio’s Composition.
For every model, it’s important to have at least these five images in your book: Beauty, Full-length, Editorial/Fashion, Commercial, and Swimsuit. This is the standard. If any of these shots are missing from your book, be sure to work on them until your portfolio is complete. You want to take full advantage of every initial opportunity you receive with an agency by presenting your book at its best. Keep in mind, if an agency really likes your look, they can still sign you even if your book is not yet complete. However, they will urge you to continue developing your portfolio because having a solid book is the only way you can properly be seen and considered by clients. At the end of the day, the work you put into building your portfolio will have to be done with or without an agency. So keep building, keep working, and keep growing!
Beauty Shots Show Your Range of Emotion.
Beauty shots are the perfect way to showcase your ability to express emotion in front of the lens. You can have a variety of beauty shots in your portfolio, which may include smiling shots, dramatic looks, or edgy, high-energy captures. Remember that your portfolio will most always need a straightforward headshot in addition to this sprinkle of variety. Use expression to your advantage — show that you are capable of portraying different characters or embracing a variety of moods and themes. This makes you more marketable and emphasizes your range.
Different Beauty Shots Appeal to Different Markets.
Whether you want to lean more toward the commercial, editorial, or fashion market, beauty shots will be a huge asset to establishing the look you will bring to your agency and to the overall modeling industry. Including plenty of fresh, smiling headshots in your portfolio will gear you more toward the commercial side of modeling, while having shots that display your ability to sell a product and still grab the viewer’s attention will show your fashion and editorial range. If you can graze your hand upon the lining of your jaw and let out a tantalizing pout or widen your eyes so that they sparkle and shine with a bright, playful smile, then you are already showing that you can work and succeed in more than just a single market.
It’s All About Showing the Unique Beauty You Bring. 
Beauty shoots are up-close-and-personal, with minimal barriers and alterations. Many beauty shots for your portfolio will be clean, simple, and straight to the point. This is the real you — the best you. In every photo, you want to command the viewer and market your beauty with confidence and poise.
Are you ready?
Are you ready to make a lasting first impression and ensure that both you and your book are prepared and presented in a professional manner? If the answer is yes, then now is the time to schedule a beauty photoshoot and secure a shot that is a solid representation of your ability to perform up-close as a model. For more on how to prepare for a beauty photoshoot and on what to expect, check out my previous blog post (add internal link to drive traffic to your other blog post and essentially back to your site). With focus and preparation, you will have a portfolio you feel proud of in no time.
1 note · View note
jobsearchtips02 · 4 years
Text
Gunmen Attack Pakistan Stock Exchange
Now Playing
6/29/2020 8: 07AM     
Gunmen opened fire outside the Pakistan Stock Exchange in Karachi on Monday. Though the high-profile attack ended without their getting into the building, WSJ’s Saeed Shah explains how it could set back Pakistan’s progress in showing the country is safe for foreign investors. Image: Fareed Khan/AP
Up Next
Editor Picks Shelf
3: 37
Health-Care Workers Sound Alarms of Coronavirus Surge
6/29/2020 5: 30AM
6/29/2020
7: 16
How the Coronavirus Pandemic Is Changing the Way We Commute
6/29/2020 7: 00AM
6/29/2020
2: 21
Coronavirus Update: States Prepare for Virus Surge, Fed’s Stress Test
6/26/2020 6: 56AM
6/26/2020
2: 05
Coronavirus Update: States See Cases Surge, Fifth Avenue Stores Reopen
6/24/2020 6: 42AM
6/24/2020
More →
Coronavirus
5: 15
How China Made Propaganda Out of the Pandemic and U.S. Protests
6/24/2020 6: 00AM
6/24/2020
China’s state media have been using the pandemic and U.S. protests sparked by the killing of George Floyd to rally its citizens at home, as Beijing’s relationships around the world grow tenser. Photo Composite: Crystal Tai/WSJ
4: 38
Volatility Trading: Investors Cash In on Market Panic
6/23/2020 5: 30AM
6/23/2020
2: 19
Coronavirus Update: Tech Industry on Visa Suspension, MLB to Restart Season
6/23/2020 6: 39AM
6/23/2020
2: 26
Coronavirus Update: TikTok Users Target Tulsa Rally, China Halts Tyson Imports
6/22/2020 6: 43AM
6/22/2020
4: 19
How Carnival Has Been Hit by the Coronavirus Crisis
6/18/2020 10: 00AM
6/18/2020
More →
More →
Editor Picks
1: 35
Mississippi Passes Bill to Change State Flag
6/29/2020 11: 03AM
6/29/2020
The Republican-dominated legislature in Mississippi, the last state to have a Confederate battle emblem on its flag, voted by a wide margin to change the design after 126 years. The bill heads to the governor, who has pledged to sign it. Photo: Rogelio V. Solis/AP
5: 41
Wirecard and the Curious Case of the Missing $2 Billion
6/26/2020 9: 24AM
6/26/2020
7: 31
Free Speech Under Siege as Hong Kong TV Show Comes to End
6/25/2020 7: 26AM
6/25/2020
4: 12
iOS 14, iPadOS, MacOS Big Sur, WatchOS 7: Changes Coming to Apple Devices
6/22/2020 11: 25PM
6/22/2020
1: 59
Why Biden’s May Fundraising Performance Matters for Campaign
6/24/2020 5: 30AM
6/24/2020
More →
Recommended for you
1: 48
Gunmen Attack Pakistan Stock Exchange
6/29/2020 8: 07AM
6/29/2020
Gunmen opened fire outside the Pakistan Stock Exchange in Karachi on Monday. Though the high-profile attack ended without their getting into the building, WSJ’s Saeed Shah explains how it could set back Pakistan’s progress in showing the country is safe for foreign investors. Image: Fareed Khan/AP
4: 12
iOS 14, iPadOS, MacOS Big Sur, WatchOS 7: Changes Coming to Apple Devices
6/22/2020 11: 25PM
6/22/2020
2: 05
Coronavirus Update: States See Cases Surge, Fifth Avenue Stores Reopen
6/24/2020 6: 42AM
6/24/2020
5: 15
How China Turned the Pandemic and Protests Into Propaganda Opportunities
6/24/2020 6: 00AM
6/24/2020
1: 37
More Americans Want Democrats to Control Congress, WSJ/NBC Poll Finds
6/11/2020 5: 30AM
6/11/2020
7: 31
Free Speech Under Siege as Hong Kong TV Show Comes to End
6/25/2020 7: 26AM
6/25/2020
4: 23
A Hollywood Pro’s Tips for Sounding Good on Calls
5/31/2020 5: 30AM
5/31/2020
1: 35
Mississippi Passes Bill to Change State Flag
6/29/2020 11: 03AM
6/29/2020
5: 41
Wirecard and the Curious Case of the Missing $2 Billion
6/26/2020 9: 24AM
6/26/2020
2: 21
Coronavirus Update: S&P 500 Erases Losses, 3M Sues Amazon Seller
6/9/2020 6: 33AM
6/9/2020
1: 47
Bolton Attacks Trump Leadership Ahead of Book Launch
6/22/2020 9: 47AM
6/22/2020
More →
Video Series
My Ride
Moving Upstream
In the Elevator With
A Brief History Of
More →
More →
Tech
4: 37
Take a Pro(ish) Headshot With Just an iPhone and $30 of Gear
6/19/2020 8: 00AM
6/19/2020
Skip Apple’s unnatural studio-lighting effects. With just a few household items, a hardware store LED bulb and your iPhone, you can create your own LinkedIn-worthy headshot. WSJ’s Kenny Wassus shows you how it’s done.
5: 26
How Coronavirus Is Ushering in a New Era of Concerts
6/15/2020 5: 30AM
6/15/2020
5: 49
How Smartphone Cameras Told the Story of Police Brutality
6/12/2020 11: 54PM
6/12/2020
2: 27
Coronavirus Update: Trump Threatens to Move Convention, Zoom Revenue Soars
6/3/2020 6: 37AM
6/3/2020
4: 23
A Hollywood Pro’s Tips for Sounding Good on Calls
5/31/2020 5: 30AM
5/31/2020
More →
More →
Opinion
1: 39
Opinion: Hits and Misses of the Week
6/28/2020 4: 59PM
6/28/2020
Journal Editorial Report: The week’s best and worst from Kim Strassel, Bill McGurn and Dan Henninger. Image: Karen Bleier/AFP via Getty Images
6: 31
Opinion: The Perils of Mail-in Ballots
6/28/2020 4: 52PM
6/28/2020
6: 32
Opinion: The Politics of Police Reform
6/28/2020 4: 44PM
6/28/2020
3: 45
Opinion: Judging FBI Conduct
6/25/2020 8: 34PM
6/25/2020
3: 45
Opinion: Smiley Face Liberalism
6/24/2020 8: 48PM
6/24/2020
More →
More →
Life & Culture
3: 59
Golf Legend Jack Nicklaus on Inspiring Loyalty and Staying the Course
6/18/2020 8: 00AM
6/18/2020
As golf courses face a reckoning across the country, Jack Nicklaus-designed courses are largely thriving. WSJ’s Shelby Holliday talks to the golf legend about adapting during his 50 years in the business.
7: 13
What to Expect When Flying Now (and in the Future)
6/17/2020 5: 30AM
6/17/2020
5: 04
Rebuilding After Crisis: JetBlue’s 2007 Valentine’s Day Disaster
6/16/2020 8: 00AM
6/16/2020
7: 55
High-Tech vs. Tradition: The Battle Over Wagyu Beef
6/4/2020 8: 00AM
6/4/2020
3: 08
Las Vegas Makes a Bet on Reopening Casinos Amid Coronavirus
6/4/2020 5: 30AM
6/4/2020
More →
More →
Business News
2: 22
Coronavirus Update: Companies’ Reopening Plans, Delegates to Stay Home
6/25/2020 6: 36AM
6/25/2020
Companies from Disney to Apple are grappling with whether to reopen or close as coronavirus cases surge; the Democratic Party urges delegates to skip the summer convention; demand for a steroid surges after the University of Oxford released positive study results. WSJ’s Jason Bellini has the latest on the pandemic. Photo: David Mcnew/AFP
5: 24
Juneteenth: What Companies and Employees Aim to Achieve
6/18/2020 5: 30AM
6/18/2020
3: 23
Former Atlanta Officer Charged With Felony Murder of Rayshard Brooks
6/17/2020 5: 23PM
6/17/2020
4: 15
Expect Delays: A Guide to This Year’s Tax Season
6/17/2020 7: 00AM
6/17/2020
2: 26
Coronavirus Update: Global Cases Top Eight Million, Fed’s Bond-Buying Plan
6/16/2020 6: 29AM
6/16/2020
More →
More →
Moving Upstream
9: 56
Electric Scooters: Israel’s Two-Wheeled Solution to Traffic and Sabbath
12/20/2018 5: 30AM
12/20/2018
Electric-scooter rental companies are hitting speed bumps in the U.S. over safety and other concerns. But in Tel Aviv, one in 10 residents has rented a Bird e-scooter, and the city appears to be embracing them. WSJ’s Jason Bellini takes a look at the challenges and potential lessons of the e-scooter craze.
0: 54
Tasting the World’s First Test-Tube Steak
12/11/2018 5: 30AM
12/11/2018
9: 58
High Insulin Prices Drive Diabetics to Take Extreme Measures
12/3/2018 5: 30AM
12/3/2018
9: 57
Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Facial Recognition Technology
11/19/2018 5: 30AM
11/19/2018
9: 54
The Future of Flight: AI in the Cockpit
11/12/2018 5: 30AM
11/12/2018
More →
More →
Mansion
6: 39
WSJ’s House of the Year: A Contemporary Home With Hawaiian Spirit
1/30/2020 11: 00AM
1/30/2020
A modern, 7,500 square-foot home connects owner Elizabeth Grossman to the nature and ‘spiritual vortex’ that drew her to Lanikai, a neighborhood on Oahu. She gives us a tour, and explains why it’s time to sell. Photo: Adam Falk/The Wall Street Journal
8: 00
In Greece, a Radical Triangular House Brings the Outdoors Inside
12/21/2019 11: 00AM
12/21/2019
5: 10
A Love of Yurts Inspired This ‘Glamp’ Retreat
7/11/2019 7: 00AM
7/11/2019
5: 38
A Cascades Home Designed to Feel Like Summer Camp
5/2/2019 10: 00AM
5/2/2019
4: 53
A Home Built to Be a Live-In Museum and Expansive Library
2/21/2019 11: 00AM
2/21/2019
More →
More →
Sponsored
27: 34
Sponsored
Creating the Future Workforce
1/17/2017 3: 39PM
1/17/2017
1: 30
Sponsored
How Worldly Experiences Can Shape One’s Success
1/24/2018
1/24/2018
2: 21
Sponsored
Am I Doing What I Love?
9/22/2016 11: 59PM
9/22/2016
1: 00
Sponsored
Golf’s Data Revolution
9/9/2016 2: 16PM
9/9/2016
More →
More →
Marketwatch and Barron’s
2: 26
How 5G could boost productivity through virtual and augmented reality
6/29/2020 10: 30AM
6/29/2020
With the promise of higher speeds and decreased latency, 5G network capabilities could boost productivity in a variety of industries through powerful AR/VR tools.
9: 43
U.S. States Reverse Reopening
6/29/2020 9: 29AM
6/29/2020
1: 44
Upwork CEO on Getting America Back to Work
6/26/2020 4: 35PM
6/26/2020
4: 23
Home Is Where The Job Is
6/26/2020 12: 06PM
6/26/2020
3: 15
How to keep emotions out of your portfolio with systematic investing
6/26/2020 11: 08AM
6/26/2020
More →
%%
from Job Search Tips https://jobsearchtips.net/gunmen-attack-pakistan-stock-exchange/
0 notes
techscopic · 7 years
Text
Voices in AI – Episode 17: A Conversation with James Barrat
Today’s leading minds talk AI with host Byron Reese
.voice-in-ai-byline-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(http://ift.tt/2g4q8sx) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; }
.voice-in-ai-byline-embed span { color: #FF6B00; }
In this episode, Byron and James talk about jobs, human vs. artificial intelligence, and more.
0:00
0:00
0:00
var go_alex_briefing = { expanded: true, get_vars: {}, twitter_player: false, auto_play: false };
(function( $ ) { ‘use strict’;
go_alex_briefing.init = function() { this.build_get_vars();
if ( ‘undefined’ != typeof go_alex_briefing.get_vars[‘action’] ) { this.twitter_player = ‘true’; }
if ( ‘undefined’ != typeof go_alex_briefing.get_vars[‘auto_play’] ) { this.auto_play = go_alex_briefing.get_vars[‘auto_play’]; }
if ( ‘true’ == this.twitter_player ) { $( ‘#top-header’ ).remove(); }
var $amplitude_args = { ‘songs’: [{“name”:”Episode 17: A Conversation with James Barrat”,”artist”:”Byron Reese”,”album”:”Voices in AI”,”url”:”https:\/\/voicesinai.s3.amazonaws.com\/2017-10-30-(00-54-11)-james-barrat.mp3″,”live”:false,”cover_art_url”:”https:\/\/voicesinai.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/voices-headshot-card-3-1.jpg”}], ‘default_album_art’: ‘http://ift.tt/2yEaCKF’ };
if ( ‘true’ == this.auto_play ) { $amplitude_args.autoplay = true; }
Amplitude.init( $amplitude_args );
this.watch_controls(); };
go_alex_briefing.watch_controls = function() { $( ‘#small-player’ ).hover( function() { $( ‘#small-player-middle-controls’ ).show(); $( ‘#small-player-middle-meta’ ).hide(); }, function() { $( ‘#small-player-middle-controls’ ).hide(); $( ‘#small-player-middle-meta’ ).show();
});
$( ‘#top-header’ ).hover(function(){ $( ‘#top-header’ ).show(); $( ‘#small-player’ ).show(); }, function(){
});
$( ‘#small-player-toggle’ ).click(function(){ $( ‘.hidden-on-collapse’ ).show(); $( ‘.hidden-on-expanded’ ).hide(); /* Is expanded */ go_alex_briefing.expanded = true; });
$(‘#top-header-toggle’).click(function(){ $( ‘.hidden-on-collapse’ ).hide(); $( ‘.hidden-on-expanded’ ).show(); /* Is collapsed */ go_alex_briefing.expanded = false; });
// We’re hacking it a bit so it works the way we want $( ‘#small-player-toggle’ ).click(); $( ‘#top-header-toggle’ ).hide(); };
go_alex_briefing.build_get_vars = function() { if( document.location.toString().indexOf( ‘?’ ) !== -1 ) {
var query = document.location .toString() // get the query string .replace(/^.*?\?/, ”) // and remove any existing hash string (thanks, @vrijdenker) .replace(/#.*$/, ”) .split(‘&’);
for( var i=0, l=query.length; i<l; i++ ) { var aux = decodeURIComponent( query[i] ).split( '=' ); this.get_vars[ aux[0] ] = aux[1]; } } };
$( function() { go_alex_briefing.init(); }); })( jQuery );
.go-alexa-briefing-player { margin-bottom: 3rem; margin-right: 0; float: none; }
.go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-header { width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; min-height: 50px; }
.go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-large-album { width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; z-index: 0; margin-top: 50px; }
.go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-large-album img#large-album-art { width: 100%; height: auto; border-radius: 0; }
.go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player { margin-top: 38px; width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; }
.go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player div#small-player-full-bottom-info { width: 90%; text-align: center; }
.go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player div#small-player-full-bottom-info div#song-time-visualization-large { width: 75%; }
.go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player-full-bottom { background-color: #f2f2f2; border-bottom-left-radius: 5px; border-bottom-right-radius: 5px; height: 57px; }
Voices in AI
Visit VoicesInAI.com to access the podcast, or subscribe now:
iTunes
Play
Stitcher
RSS
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(http://ift.tt/2g4q8sx) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed:last-of-type { margin-bottom: 0; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { margin-top: .25rem; display: block; background: url(http://ift.tt/2g3SzGL) center left no-repeat; background-size: contain; width: 100%; padding-bottom: 30%; text-indent: -9999rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem }
@media (min-width: 960px) { .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { width: 262px; height: 90px; float: left; margin-right: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 0; padding-bottom: 0; } }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:visited { color: #FF6B00; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back a:hover { color: #ff4f00; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links { margin-left: 0 !important; margin-right: 0 !important; margin-bottom: 0.25rem; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:visited { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.77); }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:hover { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.63); }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links .stitcher .stitcher-logo { display: inline; width: auto; fill: currentColor; height: 1em; margin-bottom: -.15em; }
Byron Reese: Hello, this is Voices in AI, brought to you by Gigaom. I am Byron Reese. Today I am so excited that our guest is James Barrat. He wrote a book called Our Final Invention, subtitled Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era. James Barratt is also a renowned documentary filmmaker, as well as an author. Welcome to the show, James.
James Barrat: Hello.
So, let’s start off with, what is artificial intelligence?
Very good question. Basically, artificial intelligence is when machines perform tasks that are normally ascribed to human intelligence. I have a very simple definition of intelligence that I like. Because ‘artificial intelligence’—the definition just throws the ideas back to humans, and [to] human intelligence, which is the intelligence we know the most about.
The definition I like is: intelligence is the ability to achieve goals in a variety of novel environments, and to learn. And that’s a simple definition, but a lot is packed into it. Your intelligence has to achieve goals, it has to do something—whether that’s play Go, or drive a car, or solve proofs, or navigate, or identify objects. And if it doesn’t have some goal that it achieves, it’s not very useful intelligence.
If it can achieve goals in a variety of environments, if it can do object recognition and do navigation and do car-driving like our intelligence can, then it’s better intelligence. So, it’s goal-achieving in a bunch of novel environments, and then it learns. And that’s probably the most important part. Intelligence learns and it builds on its learning.
And you wrote a widely well-received book, Artificial Intelligence: Our Final Invention. Can you explain to the audience just your overall thesis, and the main ideas of the book?
Sure. Our Final Invention is basically making the argument that AI is a dual-use technology. A dual-use technology is one that can be used for great good, or great harm. Right now we’re in a real honeymoon phase of AI, where we’re seeing a lot of nifty tools come out of it, and a lot more are on the horizon. AI, right now, can find cancer clusters in x-rays better than humans. It can do business analytics better than humans. AI is doing what first year legal associates do, it’s doing legal discovery.
So we are finding a lot of really useful applications. It’s going to make us all better drivers, because we won’t be driving anymore. But it’s a dual-use technology because, for one thing, it’s going to be taking a lot of jobs. You know, there are five million professional drivers in the United States, seven million back-office accountants—those jobs are going to go away. And a lot of others.
So the thesis of my book is that we need to look under the hood of AI, look at its applications, look who’s controlling it, and then in a longer term, look at whether or not we can control it at all.
Let’s start with that point and work backwards. That’s an ominous statement. Can we record it at all? What are you thinking there?
Can we control it at all.
I’m sorry, yes. Control it at all.
Well, let me start, I prefer to start the other way. Stephen Hawking said that the trouble with AI is, in the short term, who controls it, and in the long term, can we control it at all? And in the short term, we’ve already suffered some from AI. You know, the NSA recently was accessing your phone data and mine, and getting your phone book and mine. And it was, basically, seizing our phone records, and that used to be illegal.
Used to be that if I wanted to seize, to get your phone records, I needed to go to a court, and get a court order. And that was to avoid abridging the Fourth Amendment, which prevents illegal search and seizure of property. Your phone messages are your property. The NSA went around that, and grabbed our phone messages and our phone data, and they are able to sift through this ocean of data because of AI, because of advanced data mining software.
One other example—and there are many—one other example of, in the short term, who controls the AI, is, right now there are a lot of countries developing battlefield robots and drones that will be autonomous. And these are robots and drones that kill people without a human in the loop.  And these are AI issues. There are fifty-six nations developing battlefield robots.
The most sought after will be autonomous battlefield robots. There was an article just a couple of days ago about how the Marines have a robot that shoots a machinegun on a battlefield. They control it with a tablet, but their goal, as stated there, is to make it autonomous, to work on its own.
In the longer-term we, I’ll put it in the way that Arthur C. Clark put it to me, when I interviewed him. Arthur C. Clark was a mathematician and a physicist before he was a science fiction writer. And he created the HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, probably the most famous homicidal AI. And he said, when I asked him about the control problem of artificial intelligence, he said something like this: He said, “We humans steer the future not because we are the fastest or the strongest creatures, but because we are the most intelligent. And when we share the planet with something that’s more intelligent than we are, it will steer the future.”
So the problem we’re facing, the problem we’re on the cusp of, I can simplify it with a concept called ‘the intelligence explosion’. The intelligence explosion was an idea created by a statistician named I. J. Good in the 1960s. He said, “Once we create machines that do everything as well or better than humans, one of the things they’ll do is create smart machines.”
And we’ve seen artificial intelligence systems slowly begin to do things better than we do, and it’s not a stretch to think about a time to come, when artificial intelligence systems do advanced AI research and development better that humans. And I. J. Good said, “Then, when that happens, we humans will no longer set the pace of intelligence advancement, it will be machines that will set the pace of advancement.”
The trouble of that is, we know nothing about how to control a machine, or a cognitive architecture, that’s a thousand or million times more intelligent than we are. We have no experience with anything like that. We can look around us for analogies in the animal world.
How do we treat things that we’re a thousand times more intelligent than? Well, we treat all animals in a very negligent way. And the smart ones are either endangered, or they’re in zoos, or we eat them. That’s a very human-centric analogy, but I think it’s probably appropriate.
Let’s push on this just a little bit.  So do you…
Sure.
Do you believe… Some people say ‘AI’ is kind of this specter of a term now, that, it isn’t really anything different than any other computer programs we’ve ever run, right? It’s better and faster and all of that, but it isn’t qualitatively anything different than what we’ve had for decades.
And so why do you think that? And when you say that AIs are going to be smarter than us, a million times smarter than us, ‘smarter’ is also a really nebulous term.
I mean, they may be able to do some incredibly narrow thing better than us. I may not be able to drive a car as well as an AI, but that doesn’t mean that same AI is going to beat me at Parcheesi. So what do you think is different? Why isn’t this just incrementally… Because so far, we haven’t had any trouble.
What do you think is going to be the catalyst, or what is qualitatively different about what we are dealing with now?
Sure. Well, there’s a lot of interesting questions packed into what you just said. And one thing you said—which I think is important to draw out—is that there are many kinds of intelligence. There’s emotional intelligence, there’s rational intelligence, there’s instinctive and animal intelligence.
And so, when I say something will be much more intelligent than we are, I’m using a shorthand for: It will be better at our definition of intelligence, it will be better at solving problems in a variety of novel environments, it will be better at learning.
And to put what you asked in another way, you’re saying that there is an irreducible promise and peril to every technology, including computers. All technologies, back to fire, have some good points and some bad points. AI I find qualitatively different. And I’ll argue by analogy, for a second. AI to me is like nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is a dual-use technology capable of great good and great harm.
Nuclear fission is the power behind atom bombs and behind nuclear reactors. When we were developing it in the ‘20s and ‘30s, we thought that nuclear fission was a way to get free energy by splitting the atom. Then it was quickly weaponized. And then we used it to incinerate cities. And then we as a species held a gun at our own heads for fifty years with the arms race. We threatened to make ourselves extinct. And that almost succeeded a number of times, and that struggle isn’t over.
To me, AI is a lot more like that. You said it hasn’t been used for nefarious reasons, and I totally disagree. I gave you an example with the NSA. A couple of weeks ago, Facebook was caught up because they were targeting emotionally-challenged and despairing children for advertising.
To me, that’s extremely exploitative. It’s a rather soulless and exploitative commercial application of artificial intelligence. So I think these pitfalls are around us. They’re already taking place. So I think the qualitative difference with artificial intelligence is that intelligence is our superpower, the human superpower.
It’s the ability to be creative, the ability to invent technology. That was one thing Stephen Hawking brought up when he was asked about, “What are the pitfalls of artificial intelligence?”
He said, “Well, for one thing, they’ll be able to develop weapons we don’t even understand.” So, I think the qualitative difference is that AI is the invention that creates inventions. And we’re on the cusp, this is happening now, and we’re on the cusp of an AI revolution, it’s going to bring us great profit and also great vulnerability.
You’re no doubt familiar with Searle’s “Chinese Room” kind of question, but all of the readers, all of the listeners might not be… So let me set that up, and then get your thought on it. It goes like this:
There’s a person in a room, a giant room full of very special books. And he doesn’t—we’ll call him the librarian—and the librarian doesn’t speak a word of Chinese. He’s absolutely unfamiliar with the language.
And people slide him questions under the door which are written in Chinese, and what he does—what he’s learned to do—is to look at the first character in that message, and he finds the book, of the tens of thousands that he has, that has that on the spine. And in that book he looks up the second character. And the book then says, “Okay, go pull this book.”
And in that book he looks up the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, all the way until he gets to the end. And when he gets to the end, it says “Copy this down.” And so he copies these characters again that he doesn’t understand, doesn’t have any clue whatsoever what they are.
He copies them down very carefully, very faithfully, slides it back under the door… Somebody’s outside who picks it up, a Chinese speaker. They read it, and it’s just brilliant! It’s just absolutely brilliant! It rhymes, it’s Haiku, I mean it’s just awesome!
Now, the question, the kind of ta-da question at the end is: Does the man, does the librarian understand Chinese? Does he understand Chinese?
Now, many people in the computer world would say yes. I mean, Alan Turing would say yes, right?  The Chinese room passes the Turing Test. The Chinese speakers outside, as far as they know, they are conversing with a Chinese speaker.
So do you think the man understands Chinese? And do you think… And if he doesn’t understand Chinese… Because obviously, the analogy of it is: that’s all that computer does. A computer doesn’t understand anything. It doesn’t know if it’s talking about cholera or coffee beans or anything whatsoever. It runs this program, and it has no idea what it’s doing.
And therefore it has no volition, and therefore it has no consciousness; therefore it has nothing that even remotely looks like human intelligence. So what would you just say to that?
The Chinese Room problem is fascinating, and you could write books about it, because it’s about the nature of consciousness. And what we don’t know about consciousness, you could fill many books with. And I used to think I wanted to explore consciousness, but it made exploring AI look easy.
I don’t know if it matters that the machine thinks as we do or not. I think the point is that it will be able to solve problems. We don’t know about the volition question. Let me give you another analogy. When Ferrucci, [when] he was the head of Team Watson, he was asked a very provocative question: “Was Watson thinking when it beat all those masters at Jeopardy?” And his answer was, “Does a submarine swim?”
And what he meant was—and this is the twist on on the Chinese Room problem—he meant [that] when they created submarines, they learned principles of swimming from fish. But then they created something that swims farther and faster and carries a huge payload, so it’s really much more powerful than fish.
It doesn’t reproduce and it doesn’t do some of the miraculous things fish do, but as far as swimming, it does it.  Does an airplane fly? Well, the aviation pioneers used principles of flight from birds, but quickly went beyond that, to create things that fly farther and faster and carry a huge payload.
I don’t think it matters. So, two answers to your question. One is, I don’t think it matters. And I don’t think it’s possible that a machine will think qualitatively as we do. So, I think it will think farther and faster and carry a huge payload. I think it’s possible for a machine to be generally intelligent in a variety of domains.
We can see intelligence growing in a bunch of domains. If you think of them as rippling pools, ripples in a pool, like different circles of expertise ultimately joining, you can see how general intelligence is sort of demonstrably on its way.
Whether or not it thinks like a human, I think it won’t. And I think that’s a danger, because I think it won’t have our mammalian sense of empathy. It’ll also be good, because it won’t have a lot of sentimentality, and a lot of cognitive biases that our brains are labored with. But you said it won’t have volition. And I don’t think we can bet on that.
In my book, Our Final Invention, I interviewed at length Steve Omohundro, who’s taken upon himself—he’s an AI maker and physicist—and he’d taken it upon himself to create more or less a science for understanding super intelligent machines. Or machines that are more intelligent than we are.
And among the things that he argues for, using rational-age and economic theory—and I won’t go into that whole thing—but it’s in Our Final Invention, it’s also in Steve Omohundro’s many websites. Machines that are self-aware and are self-programming, he thinks, will develop basic drives that are not unlike our own.
And they include things like self-protection, creativity, efficiency with resources,and other drives that will make them very challenging to control—unless we get ahead of the game and create this science for understanding them, as he’s doing.
Right now, computers are not generally intelligent, they are not conscious. All the limitations of the Chinese Room, they have. But I think it’s unrealistic to think that we are frozen in development. I think it’s very realistic to think that we’ll create machines whose cognitive abilities match and then outstrip our own.
But, just kind of going a little deeper on the question. So we have this idea of intelligence, which there is no consensus definition on it. Then within that, you have human intelligence—which, again, is something we certainly don’t understand. Human intelligence comes from our brain, which is—people say—‘the most complicated object in the galaxy’.
We don’t understand how it works. We don’t know how thoughts are encoded. We know incredibly little, in the grand scheme of things, about how the brain works. But we do know that humans have these amazing abilities, like consciousness, and the ability to generalize intelligence very effortlessly. We have something that certainly feels like free will, we certainly have something that feels like… and all of that.
Then on the other hand, you think back to a clockwork, right? You wind up a clock back in the olden days and it just ran a bunch of gears. And while it may be true that the computers of the day add more gears and have more things, all we’re doing is winding it up and letting it go.
And, isn’t it, like… not only a stretch, not only a supposition, not only just sensationalistic, to say, “Oh no, no. Someday we’ll add enough gears that, you wind that thing up, and it’s actually going to be a lot smarter than you.”
Isn’t that, I mean at least it’s fair to say there’s absolutely nothing we understand about human intelligence, and human consciousness, and human will… that even remotely implies that something that’s a hundred percent mechanical, a hundred percent deterministic, a hundred percent… Just wind it and it doesn’t do anything. But…
Well, you’re wrong about being a hundred percent deterministic, and it’s not really a hundred percent mechanical. When you talk about things like will, will is such an anthropomorphic term, I’m not sure if we can really, if we can attribute it to computers.
Well, I’m specifically saying we have something that feels and seems like will, that we don’t understand.
If you look, if you look at artificial neural nets, there’s a great deal about them we don’t understand. We know what the inputs are, and we know what the outputs are; and when we want to make better output—like a better translation—we know how to adjust the inputs. But we don’t know what’s going on in a multilayered neural net system. We don’t know what’s going on in a high resolution way. And that’s why they’re called black box systems, and evolutionary algorithms.
In evolutionary algorithms, we have a sense of how they work. We have a sense of how they combine pieces of algorithms, how we introduce mutations. But often, we don’t understand the output, and we certainly don’t understand how it got there, so that’s not completely deterministic. There’s a bunch of stuff we can’t really determine in there.
And I think we’ve got a lot of unexplained behavior in computers that’s, at this stage, we simply attribute to our lack of understanding. But I think in the longer term, we’ll see that computers are doing things on their own. I’m talking about a lot of the algorithms on Wall Street, a lot of the flash crashes we’ve seen, a lot of the cognitive architectures. There’s not one person who can describe the whole system… the ‘quants’, they call them, or the guys that are programming Wall Street’s algorithms.
They’ve already gone, in complexity, beyond any individual’s ability to really strip them down.
So, we’re surrounded by systems of immense power. Gartner and company think that in the AI space—because of the exponential nature of the investment… I think it started out, and it’s doubled every year since 2009—Gartner estimates that by 2025, that space will be worth twenty-five trillion dollars of value. So to me, that’s a couple of things.
That anticipates enormous growth, and enormous growth in power in what these systems will do. We’re in an era now that’s different from other eras. But it is like other Industrial Revolutions. We’re in an era now where everything that’s electrified—to paraphrase Kevin Kelly, the futurist—everything that’s electrified is being cognitized.
We can’t pretend that it will always be like a clock. Even now it’s not like a clock. A clock you can take apart, and you can understand every piece of it.
The cognitive architectures we’re creating now… When Ferrucci was watching Watson play, and he said, “Why did he answer like that?” There’s nobody on his team that knew the answer. When it made mistakes… It did really, really well; it beat the humans. But comparing [that] to a clock, I think that’s the wrong metaphor.
Well, let’s just poke at it just one more minute, and then we can move on to something else. Is that really fair to say, that because humans don’t understand how it works, it must be somehow working differently than other machines?
Put another way, it is fair to say, because we’ve added enough gears now, that nobody could kind of keep them all straight. I mean nobody understands why the Google algorithm—even at Google—turns up what it does when you search. But nobody’s suggesting anything nondeterministic, nothing emergent, anything like that is happening.
I mean, our computers are completely deterministic, are they not?
I don’t think that they are. I think if they were completely deterministic, then enough brains put together could figure out a multi-tiered neural net, and I don’t think there’s any evidence that we can right now.
Well, that’s exciting.  
I’m not saying that it’s coming up with brilliant new ideas… But a system that’s so sophisticated that it defeats Go, and teaches grandmasters new ideas about Go—which is what the grandmaster who it defeated three out of four times said—[he] said, “I have new insights about this game,” that nobody could explain what it was doing, but it was thinking creatively in a way that we don’t understand.
Go is not like chess. On a chess board, I don’t know how many possible positions there are, but it’s calculable. On a Go board, it’s incalculable. There are more—I’ve heard it said, and I don’t really understand it very well—I heard it said there are more possible positions on a Go board than there are atoms in the universe.
So when it’s beating Go masters… Therefore, playing the game requires a great deal of intuition. It’s not just pattern-matching. Like, I’ve played a million games of Go—and that’s sort of what chess is [pattern-matching].
You know, the grandmasters are people who have seen every board you could possibly come up with. They’ve probably seen it before, and they know what to do. Go’s not like that. It requires a lot more undefinable intuition.
And so we’re moving rapidly into that territory. The program that beat the Go masters is called AlphaGo. It comes out of DeepMind. DeepMind was bought four years ago by Google. Going deep into reinforcement learning and artificial neural nets, I think your argument would be apt if we were talking about some of the old languages—Fortran, Basic, Pascal—where you could look at every line of code and figure out what was going on.
That’s no longer possible, and you’ve got Go grandmasters saying “I learned new insights.” So we’re in a brave new world here.
So you had a great part of the book, where you do a really smart kind of roll-up of when we may have an AGI. Where you went into different ideas behind it. And the question I’m really curious about is this: On the one hand, you have Elon Musk saying we can have it much sooner than you think. You have Stephen Hawking, who you quoted. You have Bill Gates saying he’s worried about it.
So you have all of these people who say it’s soon, it’s real, and it’s potentially scary. We need to watch what we do. Then on the other camp, you have people who are equally immersed in the technology, equally smart, equally, equally, equally all these other things… like Andrew Ng, who up until recently headed up AI at Baidu, who says worrying about AGI is like worrying about overpopulation on Mars. You have other people saying the soonest it could possibly happen is five hundred years from now.
So I’m curious about this. Why do you think, among these big brains, super smart people, why do they have… What is it that they believe or know or think, or whatever, that gives them such radically different views about this technology? How do you get your head around why they differ?
Excellent question. I first heard that Mars analogy from, I think it was Sebastian Thrun, who said we don’t know how to get to Mars. We don’t know how to live on Mars. But we know how to get a rocket to the moon, and gradually and slowly, little by little—No, it was Peter Norvig, who wrote the sort of standard text on artificial intelligence, called AI: A Modern Approach.
He said, you know, “We can’t live on Mars yet, but we’re putting the rockets together. Some companies are putting in some money. We’re eventually going to get to Mars, and there’ll be people living on Mars, and then people will be setting another horizon.” We haven’t left our solar system yet.
It’s a very interesting question, and very timely, about when will we achieve human-level intelligence in a machine, if ever. I did a poll about it. It was kind of a biased poll; it was of people who were at a conference about AGI, about artificial general intelligence. And then I’ve seen a lot of polls, and there’s two points to this.
One is the polls go all over the place. Some people said… Ray Kurzweil says 2029. Ray Kurzweil’s been very good at anticipating the progress of technology, he says 2029. Ray Kurzweil’s working for Google right now—this is parenthetically—he said he wants to create a machine that makes three hundred trillion calculations per second, and to share that with a billion people online. So what’s that? That’s basically reverse engineering of a brain.
Making three hundred trillion calculations per second, which is sort of a rough estimate of what a brain does. And then sharing it with a billion people online, which is making superintelligence a service, which would be incredibly useful. You could do pharmacological research. You could do really advanced weather modeling, and climate modeling. You could do weapons research, you could develop incredible weapons. He says 2029.
Some people said one hundred years from now. The mean date that I got was about 2045 for human-level intelligence in a machine. And then my book, Our Final Invention, got reviewed by Gary Marcus in the New Yorker, and he said something that stuck with me. He said whether or not it’s ten years or one hundred years, the more important question is: What happens next?
Will it be integrated into our lives? Or will it suddenly appear? How are we positioned for our own safety and security when it appears, whether it’s in fifty years or one hundred? So I think about it as… Nobody thought Go was going to be beaten for another ten years.
And here’s another way… So those are the two ways to think about it: one is, there’s a lot of guesses; and two, does it really matter what happens next? But the third part of that is this, and I write about it in Our Final Invention: If we don’t achieve it in one hundred years, do you think we’re just going to stop? Or do you think we’re going to keep beating at this problem until we solve it?
And as I said before, I don’t think we’re going to create exactly human-like intelligence in a machine. I think we’re going to create something extremely smart and extremely useful, to some extent, but something we, in a very deep way, don’t understand. So I don’t think it’ll be like human intelligence… it will be like an alien intelligence.
So that’s kind of where I am on that. I think it could happen in a variety of timelines. It doesn’t really matter when, and we’re not going to stop until we get there. So ultimately, we’re going to be confronted with machines that are a thousand or a million times more intelligent than we are.
And what are we going to do?
Well, I guess the underlying assumption is… it speaks to the credibility of the forecast, right? Like, if there’s a lab, and they’re working on inventing the lightbulb, like: “We’re trying to build the incandescent light bulb.” And you go in there and you say, “When will you have the incandescent light bulb?” and they say “Three or four weeks, five weeks. Five weeks tops, we’re going to have it.”  
Or if they say, “Uh, a hundred years. It may be five hundred, I don’t know.” I mean in those things you take a completely different view of, do we understand the problem? Do we know what we’re building? Do we know how to build an AGI? Do we even have a clue?
Do you believe… or here, let me ask it this way: Do you think an AGI is just an evolutionary… Like, we have AlphaGo, we have Watson, and we’re making them better every day. And eventually, that kind of becomes—gradually—this AGI. Or do you think there’s some “A-ha” thing we don’t know how to do, and at some point we’re like “Oh, here’s how you do it! And this is how you get a synapse to work.”
So, do you think we are nineteen revolutionary breakthroughs away, or “No, no, no, we’re on the path. We’re going to be there in three to five years.”?
Ben Goertzel, who is definitely in the race to make AGI—I interviewed him in my book—said we need some sort of breakthrough. And then we got to artificial neural nets and deep learning, and deep learning combined with reinforcement learning, which is an older technique, and that was kind of a breakthrough. And then people started to beat—IBM’s Deep Blue—to beat chess, it really was just looking up tables of positions.
But to beat Go, as we’ve discussed, was something different.
I think we’ve just had a big breakthrough. I don’t know how many revolutions we are away from a breakthrough that makes intelligence general. But let me give you this… the way I think about it.
There’s long been talk in the AI community about an algorithm… I don’t know exactly what they call it. But it’s basically an open-domain problem-solver that asks something simple like, what’s the next best move? What’s the next best thing to do? Best being based on some goals that you’ve got. What’s the next best thing to do?
Well, that’s sort of how DeepMind took on all the Atari games. They could drop the algorithm into a game, and it didn’t even know the rules. It just noticed when it was scoring or not scoring, and so it was figuring out what’s the next best thing to do.
Well if you can drop it into every Atari game, and then you drop it into something that’s many orders of magnitude above it, like Go, then why are we so far from dropping that into a robot and setting it out into the environment, and having it learn the environment and learn common sense about the environment—like, “Things go under, and things go over; and I can’t jump into the tree; I can climb the tree.”
It seems to me that general intelligence might be as simple as a program that says “What’s the next best thing to do?” And then it learns the environment, and then it solves problems in the environment.
So some people are going about that by training algorithms, artificial neural net systems and defeating games. Some people are really trying to reverse-engineer a brain, one neuron at a time. That’s sort of, in a nutshell—to vastly overgeneralize—that’s called the bottom-up, and the top-down approach for creating AGI.
So are we a certain number of revolutions away, or are we going to be surprised? I’m surprised a little too frequently for my own comfort about how fast things are moving. Faster than when I was writing the book. I’m wondering what the next milestone is. I think the Turing Test has not been achieved, or even close. I think that’s a good milestone.
It wouldn’t surprise me if IBM, which is great at issuing itself grand challenges and then beating them… But what’s great about IBM is, they’re upfront. They take on a big challenge… You know, they were beaten—Deep Blue was beaten several times before it won. When they took on Jeopardy, they weren’t sure they were going to win, but they had the chutzpah to get out there and say, “We’re gonna try.” And then they won.
I bet IBM will say, “You know what, in 2020, we’re going to take on the Turing Test. And we’re going to have a machine that you can’t tell that it’s a machine. You can’t tell the difference between a machine and a human.”
So, I’m surprised all the time. I don’t know how far or how close we are, but I’d say I come at it from a position of caution. So I would say, the window in which we have to create safe AI is closing.
Yes, no… I’m with you; I was just taking that in. I’ll insert some ominous “Dun, dun, dun…” Take that a little further.
Everybody has a role to play in this conversation, and mine happens to be canary in a coal mine. Despite the title of my book, I really like AI. I like its potential. Medical potential. I don’t like its war potential… If we see autonomous battlefield robots on the battlefield, you know what’s going to happen. Like every other piece of used military equipment, it’s going to come home.
Well, the thing is, about the military… and the thing about technology is…If you told my dad that he would invite into his home a representative of Google, and that representative would sit in a chair in a corner of the house, and he would take down everything we said, and would sell that data to our insurance company, so our insurance rates might go up… and it would sell that data to mortgage bankers, so they might cut off our ability to get a mortgage… because dad talks about going bankrupt, or dad talks about his heart condition… and he can’t get insurance anymore.
But if we hire a corporate guy, and we pay for it, and put him in our living room… Well, that’s exactly what we’re doing with Amazon Echo, with all the digital assistants. All this data is being gathered all the time, and it’s being sold… Buying and selling data is a four billion dollar-a-year industry. So we’re doing really foolish things with this technology. Things that are bad for our own interests.
So let me ask you an open-ended question… prognostication over shorter time frames is always easier. Tell me what you think is in store for the world, I don’t know, between now and 2030, the next thirteen years. Talk to me about unemployment, talk to me about economics, all of that. Tell me the next thirteen years.
Well, brace yourself for some futurism, which is a giant gamble and often wrong. To paraphrase Kevin Kelly again, everything that’s electrical will be cognitized. Our economy will be dramatically shaped by the ubiquity of artificial intelligence. With the Internet of Things, with the intelligence of everything around us—our phones, our cars…
I can already talk to my car. I’m inside my car, I can ask for directions, I can do some other basic stuff. That’s just going to get smarter, until my car drives itself. A lot of people… MIT did a study, that was quoting a Cambridge study, that said: “Forty-five percent of our jobs will be able to be replaced within twenty years.” I think they downgraded that to like ten years.
Not that they will be replaced, but they will be able to be replaced. But when AI is a twenty-five trillion dollar—when it’s worth twenty-five trillion dollars in 2025—everybody will be able to do anything, will be able to replace any employee that’s doing anything that’s remotely repetitive, and this includes doctors and lawyers… We’ll be able to replace them with the AI.
And this cuts deep into the middle class. This isn’t just people working in factories or driving cars. This is all accountants, this is a lot of the doctors, this is a lot of the lawyers. So we’re going to see giant dislocation, or giant disruption, in the economy. And giant money being made by fewer and fewer people.
And the trouble with that is, that we’ve got to figure out a way to keep a huge part of our population from starving, from not making a wage. People have proposed a basic minimum income, but to do that we would need tax revenue. And the big companies, Amazon, Google, Facebook, they pay taxes in places like Ireland, where there’s very low corporate tax. They don’t pay taxes where they get their wealth. So they don’t contribute to your roads.
Google is not contributing to your road system. Amazon is not contributing to your water supply, or to making your country safe. So there’s a giant inequity there. So we have to confront that inequity and, unfortunately, that is going to require political solutions, and our politicians are about the most technologically-backward people in our culture.
So, what I see is, a lot of unemployment. I see a lot of nifty things coming out of AI, and I am willing to be surprised by job creation in AI, and robotics, and automation. And I’d like to be surprised by that. But the general trend is… When you replace the biggest contract manufacturer in the world… Foxconn just replaced thirty-thousand people in Asia with thirty-thousand robots.
And all those people can’t be retrained, because if you’re doing something that’s that repetitive, and that mechanical… what can you be retrained to do? Well, maybe one out of every hundred could be a floor manager in a robot factory, but what about all the others? Disruption is going to come from all the people that don’t have jobs, and there’s nothing to be retrained to.
Because our robots are made in factories where robots make the robots. Our cars are made in factories where robots make the cars.
Isn’t that the same argument they used during the Industrial Revolution, when they said, “You got ninety percent of people out there who are farmers, and we’re going to lose all these farm jobs… And you don’t expect those farmers are going to, like, come work in a factory, where they have to learn completely new things.”
Well, what really happened in the different technology revolutions, back from the cotton gin onward is, a small sector… The Industrial Revolution didn’t suddenly put farms out of business. A hundred years ago, ninety percent of people worked on farms, now it’s ten percent.
But what happened with the Industrial Revolution is, sector by sector, it took away jobs, but then those people could retrain, and could go to other sectors, because there were still giant sectors that weren’t replaced by industrialization. There was still a lot of manual labor to do. And some of them could be trained upwards, into management and other things.
This, as the author Ford wrote in The Rise of Robots—and there’s also a great book called The Fourth Industrial Age. As they both argue, what’s different about this revolution is that AI works in every industry. So it’s not like the old revolutions, where one sector was replaced at a time, and there was time to absorb that change, time to reabsorb those workers and retrain them in some fashion.
But everybody is going to be… My point is, all sectors of the economy are going to be hit at once. The ubiquity of AI is going to impact a lot of the economy, all at the same time, and there is going to be a giant dislocation all at the same time. And it’s very unclear, unlike in the old days, how those people can be retrained and retargeted for jobs. So, I think it’s very different from other Industrial Revolutions, or rather technology revolutions.
Other than the adoption of coal—it went from generating five percent to eighty percent of all of our power in twenty years—the electrification of industry happened incredibly fast. Mechanization, replacement of animal power with mechanical power, happened incredibly fast. And yet, unemployment remains between four and nine percent in this country.
Other than the Depression, without ever even hiccupping—like, no matter what disruption, no matter what speed you threw at it—the economy never couldn’t just use that technology to create more jobs. And isn’t that maybe a lack of imagination that says “Well, no, now we’re out. And no more jobs to create. Or not ones that these people who’ve been displaced can do.”
I mean, isn’t that what people would’ve said for two hundred years?
Yes, that’s a somewhat persuasive argument. I think you’ve got a point that the economy was able to absorb those jobs, and the unemployment remained steady. I do think this is different. I think it’s a kind of a puzzle, and we’ll have to see what happens. But I can’t imagine… Where do professional drivers… they’re not unskilled, but they’re right next to it. And it’s the job of choice for people who don’t have a lot of education.
What do you retrain professional drivers to do once their jobs are taken? It’s not going to be factory work, it’s not going to be simple accounting. It’s not going to be anything repetitive, because that’s going to be the job of automation and AI.
So I anticipate problems, but I’d love to be pleasantly surprised. If it worked like the old days, then all those people that were cut off the farm would go to work in the factories, and make Ford automobiles, and make enough money to buy one. I don’t see all those driverless people going off to factories to make cars, or to manufacture anything.
A case in point of what’s happening is… Rethink Robotics, which is Rodney Brooks’ company, just built something called Baxter; and now Baxter is a generation old, and I can’t think of what replaced it. But it costs about twenty-two thousand dollars to get one of these robots. These robots cost basically what a minimum wage worker makes in a year. But they work 24/7, so they really replace three shifts, so they really are replacing three people.
Where do those people go? Do they go to shops that make Baxter? Or maybe you’re right, maybe it’s a failure of imagination to not be able to anticipate the jobs that would be created by Baxter and by autonomous cars. Right now, it’s failing a lot of people’s imagination. And there are not ready answers.
I mean, if it were 1995 and the Internet was, you’re just hearing about it, just getting online, just hearing it… And somebody said, “You know what? There’s going to be a lot of companies that just come out and make hundreds of billions of dollars, one after the other, all because we’ve learned how to connect computers and use this hypertext protocol to communicate.” I mean, that would not have seemed like a reasonable surmise.
No, and that’s a great example. If you were told that trillions of dollars of value are going to come out of this invention, who would’ve thought? And maybe I personally, just can’t imagine the next wave that is going to create that much value. I can see how AI and automation will create a lot of value, I only see it going into a few pockets though. I don’t see it being distributed in any way that the Silicon Valley startups, at least initially, were.
So let’s talk about you for a moment. Your background is in documentary filmmaking. Do you see yourself returning to that world? What are you working on, another book? What kind of thing is keeping you busy by day right now?
Well, I like making documentary films. I just had one on PBS last year… If you Google “Spillover” and “PBS” you can see it is streaming online. It was about spillover diseases—Ebola, Zika and others—and it was about the Ebola crisis, and how viruses spread. And then now I’m working on a film about paleontology, about a recent discovery that’s kind of secret, that I can’t talk about… from sixty-six million years ago.
And I am starting to work on another book that I can’t talk about. So I am keeping an eye on AI, because this issue is… Despite everything I talk about, I really like the technology; I think it’s pretty amazing.
Well, let’s close with, give me a scenario that you think is plausible, that things work out. That we have something that looks like full employment, and…
Good, Byron. That’s a great way to go out. I see people getting individually educated about the promise and peril of AI, so that we as a culture are ready for the revolution that’s coming. And that forces businesses to be responsible, and politicians to be savvy, about developments in artificial intelligence. Then they invest some money to make artificial intelligence advancement transparent and safe.
And therefore, when we get to machines that are as smart as humans, that [they] are actually our allies, and never our competitors. And that somehow on top of this giant wedding cake I’m imagining, we also manage to keep full employment, or nearly-full employment. Because we’re aware, and because we’re working all the time to make sure that the future is kind to humans.
Alright, well, that is a great place to leave it. I am going to thank you very much.
Well, thank you. Great questions. I really enjoyed the back-and-forth.
Byron explores issues around artificial intelligence and conscious computers in his upcoming book The Fourth Age, to be published in April by Atria, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. Pre-order a copy here. 
Voices in AI
Visit VoicesInAI.com to access the podcast, or subscribe now:
iTunes
Play
Stitcher
RSS
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(http://ift.tt/2g4q8sx) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed:last-of-type { margin-bottom: 0; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { margin-top: .25rem; display: block; background: url(http://ift.tt/2g3SzGL) center left no-repeat; background-size: contain; width: 100%; padding-bottom: 30%; text-indent: -9999rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem }
@media (min-width: 960px) { .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { width: 262px; height: 90px; float: left; margin-right: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 0; padding-bottom: 0; } }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:visited { color: #FF6B00; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back a:hover { color: #ff4f00; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links { margin-left: 0 !important; margin-right: 0 !important; margin-bottom: 0.25rem; }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:visited { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.77); }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:hover { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.63); }
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links .stitcher .stitcher-logo { display: inline; width: auto; fill: currentColor; height: 1em; margin-bottom: -.15em; } Voices in AI – Episode 17: A Conversation with James Barrat syndicated from http://ift.tt/2wBRU5Z
0 notes
clarenceomoore · 7 years
Text
Voices in AI – Episode 17: A Conversation with James Barrat
Today's leading minds talk AI with host Byron Reese
.voice-in-ai-byline-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cropped-voices-background.jpg) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; } .voice-in-ai-byline-embed span { color: #FF6B00; }
In this episode, Byron and James talk about jobs, human vs. artificial intelligence, and more.
-
-
0:00
0:00
0:00
var go_alex_briefing = { expanded: true, get_vars: {}, twitter_player: false, auto_play: false }; (function( $ ) { 'use strict'; go_alex_briefing.init = function() { this.build_get_vars(); if ( 'undefined' != typeof go_alex_briefing.get_vars['action'] ) { this.twitter_player = 'true'; } if ( 'undefined' != typeof go_alex_briefing.get_vars['auto_play'] ) { this.auto_play = go_alex_briefing.get_vars['auto_play']; } if ( 'true' == this.twitter_player ) { $( '#top-header' ).remove(); } var $amplitude_args = { 'songs': [{"name":"Episode 17: A Conversation with James Barrat","artist":"Byron Reese","album":"Voices in AI","url":"https:\/\/voicesinai.s3.amazonaws.com\/2017-10-30-(00-54-11)-james-barrat.mp3","live":false,"cover_art_url":"https:\/\/voicesinai.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/voices-headshot-card-3-1.jpg"}], 'default_album_art': 'https://gigaom.com/wp-content/plugins/go-alexa-briefing/components/external/amplify/images/no-cover-large.png' }; if ( 'true' == this.auto_play ) { $amplitude_args.autoplay = true; } Amplitude.init( $amplitude_args ); this.watch_controls(); }; go_alex_briefing.watch_controls = function() { $( '#small-player' ).hover( function() { $( '#small-player-middle-controls' ).show(); $( '#small-player-middle-meta' ).hide(); }, function() { $( '#small-player-middle-controls' ).hide(); $( '#small-player-middle-meta' ).show(); }); $( '#top-header' ).hover(function(){ $( '#top-header' ).show(); $( '#small-player' ).show(); }, function(){ }); $( '#small-player-toggle' ).click(function(){ $( '.hidden-on-collapse' ).show(); $( '.hidden-on-expanded' ).hide(); /* Is expanded */ go_alex_briefing.expanded = true; }); $('#top-header-toggle').click(function(){ $( '.hidden-on-collapse' ).hide(); $( '.hidden-on-expanded' ).show(); /* Is collapsed */ go_alex_briefing.expanded = false; }); // We're hacking it a bit so it works the way we want $( '#small-player-toggle' ).click(); $( '#top-header-toggle' ).hide(); }; go_alex_briefing.build_get_vars = function() { if( document.location.toString().indexOf( '?' ) !== -1 ) { var query = document.location .toString() // get the query string .replace(/^.*?\?/, '') // and remove any existing hash string (thanks, @vrijdenker) .replace(/#.*$/, '') .split('&'); for( var i=0, l=query.length; i<l; i++ ) { var aux = decodeURIComponent( query[i] ).split( '=' ); this.get_vars[ aux[0] ] = aux[1]; } } }; $( function() { go_alex_briefing.init(); }); })( jQuery ); .go-alexa-briefing-player { margin-bottom: 3rem; margin-right: 0; float: none; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-header { width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; min-height: 50px; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-large-album { width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; z-index: 0; margin-top: 50px; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-large-album img#large-album-art { width: 100%; height: auto; border-radius: 0; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player { margin-top: 38px; width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player div#small-player-full-bottom-info { width: 90%; text-align: center; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player div#small-player-full-bottom-info div#song-time-visualization-large { width: 75%; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player-full-bottom { background-color: #f2f2f2; border-bottom-left-radius: 5px; border-bottom-right-radius: 5px; height: 57px; }
Voices in AI
Visit VoicesInAI.com to access the podcast, or subscribe now:
iTunes
Play
Stitcher
RSS
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cropped-voices-background.jpg) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed:last-of-type { margin-bottom: 0; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { margin-top: .25rem; display: block; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/voices-in-ai-logo-light-768x264.png) center left no-repeat; background-size: contain; width: 100%; padding-bottom: 30%; text-indent: -9999rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem } @media (min-width: 960px) { .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { width: 262px; height: 90px; float: left; margin-right: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 0; padding-bottom: 0; } } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:visited { color: #FF6B00; } .voice-in-ai-link-back a:hover { color: #ff4f00; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links { margin-left: 0 !important; margin-right: 0 !important; margin-bottom: 0.25rem; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:visited { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.77); } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:hover { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.63); } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links .stitcher .stitcher-logo { display: inline; width: auto; fill: currentColor; height: 1em; margin-bottom: -.15em; }
Byron Reese: Hello, this is Voices in AI, brought to you by Gigaom. I am Byron Reese. Today I am so excited that our guest is James Barrat. He wrote a book called Our Final Invention, subtitled Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era. James Barratt is also a renowned documentary filmmaker, as well as an author. Welcome to the show, James.
James Barrat: Hello.
So, let’s start off with, what is artificial intelligence?
Very good question. Basically, artificial intelligence is when machines perform tasks that are normally ascribed to human intelligence. I have a very simple definition of intelligence that I like. Because ‘artificial intelligence’—the definition just throws the ideas back to humans, and [to] human intelligence, which is the intelligence we know the most about.
The definition I like is: intelligence is the ability to achieve goals in a variety of novel environments, and to learn. And that’s a simple definition, but a lot is packed into it. Your intelligence has to achieve goals, it has to do something—whether that’s play Go, or drive a car, or solve proofs, or navigate, or identify objects. And if it doesn’t have some goal that it achieves, it’s not very useful intelligence.
If it can achieve goals in a variety of environments, if it can do object recognition and do navigation and do car-driving like our intelligence can, then it’s better intelligence. So, it’s goal-achieving in a bunch of novel environments, and then it learns. And that’s probably the most important part. Intelligence learns and it builds on its learning.
And you wrote a widely well-received book, Artificial Intelligence: Our Final Invention. Can you explain to the audience just your overall thesis, and the main ideas of the book?
Sure. Our Final Invention is basically making the argument that AI is a dual-use technology. A dual-use technology is one that can be used for great good, or great harm. Right now we’re in a real honeymoon phase of AI, where we’re seeing a lot of nifty tools come out of it, and a lot more are on the horizon. AI, right now, can find cancer clusters in x-rays better than humans. It can do business analytics better than humans. AI is doing what first year legal associates do, it’s doing legal discovery.
So we are finding a lot of really useful applications. It’s going to make us all better drivers, because we won’t be driving anymore. But it’s a dual-use technology because, for one thing, it’s going to be taking a lot of jobs. You know, there are five million professional drivers in the United States, seven million back-office accountants—those jobs are going to go away. And a lot of others.
So the thesis of my book is that we need to look under the hood of AI, look at its applications, look who’s controlling it, and then in a longer term, look at whether or not we can control it at all.
Let’s start with that point and work backwards. That’s an ominous statement. Can we record it at all? What are you thinking there?
Can we control it at all.
I’m sorry, yes. Control it at all.
Well, let me start, I prefer to start the other way. Stephen Hawking said that the trouble with AI is, in the short term, who controls it, and in the long term, can we control it at all? And in the short term, we’ve already suffered some from AI. You know, the NSA recently was accessing your phone data and mine, and getting your phone book and mine. And it was, basically, seizing our phone records, and that used to be illegal.
Used to be that if I wanted to seize, to get your phone records, I needed to go to a court, and get a court order. And that was to avoid abridging the Fourth Amendment, which prevents illegal search and seizure of property. Your phone messages are your property. The NSA went around that, and grabbed our phone messages and our phone data, and they are able to sift through this ocean of data because of AI, because of advanced data mining software.
One other example—and there are many—one other example of, in the short term, who controls the AI, is, right now there are a lot of countries developing battlefield robots and drones that will be autonomous. And these are robots and drones that kill people without a human in the loop.  And these are AI issues. There are fifty-six nations developing battlefield robots.
The most sought after will be autonomous battlefield robots. There was an article just a couple of days ago about how the Marines have a robot that shoots a machinegun on a battlefield. They control it with a tablet, but their goal, as stated there, is to make it autonomous, to work on its own.
In the longer-term we, I’ll put it in the way that Arthur C. Clark put it to me, when I interviewed him. Arthur C. Clark was a mathematician and a physicist before he was a science fiction writer. And he created the HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, probably the most famous homicidal AI. And he said, when I asked him about the control problem of artificial intelligence, he said something like this: He said, “We humans steer the future not because we are the fastest or the strongest creatures, but because we are the most intelligent. And when we share the planet with something that’s more intelligent than we are, it will steer the future.”
So the problem we’re facing, the problem we’re on the cusp of, I can simplify it with a concept called ‘the intelligence explosion’. The intelligence explosion was an idea created by a statistician named I. J. Good in the 1960s. He said, “Once we create machines that do everything as well or better than humans, one of the things they’ll do is create smart machines.”
And we’ve seen artificial intelligence systems slowly begin to do things better than we do, and it’s not a stretch to think about a time to come, when artificial intelligence systems do advanced AI research and development better that humans. And I. J. Good said, “Then, when that happens, we humans will no longer set the pace of intelligence advancement, it will be machines that will set the pace of advancement.”
The trouble of that is, we know nothing about how to control a machine, or a cognitive architecture, that’s a thousand or million times more intelligent than we are. We have no experience with anything like that. We can look around us for analogies in the animal world.
How do we treat things that we’re a thousand times more intelligent than? Well, we treat all animals in a very negligent way. And the smart ones are either endangered, or they’re in zoos, or we eat them. That’s a very human-centric analogy, but I think it’s probably appropriate.
Let’s push on this just a little bit.  So do you…
Sure.
Do you believe… Some people say ‘AI’ is kind of this specter of a term now, that, it isn’t really anything different than any other computer programs we’ve ever run, right? It’s better and faster and all of that, but it isn’t qualitatively anything different than what we’ve had for decades.
And so why do you think that? And when you say that AIs are going to be smarter than us, a million times smarter than us, ‘smarter’ is also a really nebulous term.
I mean, they may be able to do some incredibly narrow thing better than us. I may not be able to drive a car as well as an AI, but that doesn’t mean that same AI is going to beat me at Parcheesi. So what do you think is different? Why isn’t this just incrementally… Because so far, we haven’t had any trouble.
What do you think is going to be the catalyst, or what is qualitatively different about what we are dealing with now?
Sure. Well, there’s a lot of interesting questions packed into what you just said. And one thing you said—which I think is important to draw out—is that there are many kinds of intelligence. There’s emotional intelligence, there’s rational intelligence, there’s instinctive and animal intelligence.
And so, when I say something will be much more intelligent than we are, I’m using a shorthand for: It will be better at our definition of intelligence, it will be better at solving problems in a variety of novel environments, it will be better at learning.
And to put what you asked in another way, you’re saying that there is an irreducible promise and peril to every technology, including computers. All technologies, back to fire, have some good points and some bad points. AI I find qualitatively different. And I’ll argue by analogy, for a second. AI to me is like nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is a dual-use technology capable of great good and great harm.
Nuclear fission is the power behind atom bombs and behind nuclear reactors. When we were developing it in the ‘20s and ‘30s, we thought that nuclear fission was a way to get free energy by splitting the atom. Then it was quickly weaponized. And then we used it to incinerate cities. And then we as a species held a gun at our own heads for fifty years with the arms race. We threatened to make ourselves extinct. And that almost succeeded a number of times, and that struggle isn’t over.
To me, AI is a lot more like that. You said it hasn’t been used for nefarious reasons, and I totally disagree. I gave you an example with the NSA. A couple of weeks ago, Facebook was caught up because they were targeting emotionally-challenged and despairing children for advertising.
To me, that’s extremely exploitative. It’s a rather soulless and exploitative commercial application of artificial intelligence. So I think these pitfalls are around us. They’re already taking place. So I think the qualitative difference with artificial intelligence is that intelligence is our superpower, the human superpower.
It’s the ability to be creative, the ability to invent technology. That was one thing Stephen Hawking brought up when he was asked about, “What are the pitfalls of artificial intelligence?”
He said, “Well, for one thing, they’ll be able to develop weapons we don’t even understand.” So, I think the qualitative difference is that AI is the invention that creates inventions. And we’re on the cusp, this is happening now, and we’re on the cusp of an AI revolution, it’s going to bring us great profit and also great vulnerability.
You’re no doubt familiar with Searle’s “Chinese Room” kind of question, but all of the readers, all of the listeners might not be… So let me set that up, and then get your thought on it. It goes like this:
There’s a person in a room, a giant room full of very special books. And he doesn’t—we’ll call him the librarian—and the librarian doesn’t speak a word of Chinese. He’s absolutely unfamiliar with the language.
And people slide him questions under the door which are written in Chinese, and what he does—what he’s learned to do—is to look at the first character in that message, and he finds the book, of the tens of thousands that he has, that has that on the spine. And in that book he looks up the second character. And the book then says, “Okay, go pull this book.”
And in that book he looks up the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, all the way until he gets to the end. And when he gets to the end, it says “Copy this down.” And so he copies these characters again that he doesn’t understand, doesn’t have any clue whatsoever what they are.
He copies them down very carefully, very faithfully, slides it back under the door… Somebody’s outside who picks it up, a Chinese speaker. They read it, and it’s just brilliant! It’s just absolutely brilliant! It rhymes, it’s Haiku, I mean it’s just awesome!
Now, the question, the kind of ta-da question at the end is: Does the man, does the librarian understand Chinese? Does he understand Chinese?
Now, many people in the computer world would say yes. I mean, Alan Turing would say yes, right?  The Chinese room passes the Turing Test. The Chinese speakers outside, as far as they know, they are conversing with a Chinese speaker.
So do you think the man understands Chinese? And do you think… And if he doesn’t understand Chinese… Because obviously, the analogy of it is: that’s all that computer does. A computer doesn’t understand anything. It doesn’t know if it’s talking about cholera or coffee beans or anything whatsoever. It runs this program, and it has no idea what it’s doing.
And therefore it has no volition, and therefore it has no consciousness; therefore it has nothing that even remotely looks like human intelligence. So what would you just say to that?
The Chinese Room problem is fascinating, and you could write books about it, because it’s about the nature of consciousness. And what we don’t know about consciousness, you could fill many books with. And I used to think I wanted to explore consciousness, but it made exploring AI look easy.
I don’t know if it matters that the machine thinks as we do or not. I think the point is that it will be able to solve problems. We don’t know about the volition question. Let me give you another analogy. When Ferrucci, [when] he was the head of Team Watson, he was asked a very provocative question: “Was Watson thinking when it beat all those masters at Jeopardy?” And his answer was, “Does a submarine swim?”
And what he meant was—and this is the twist on on the Chinese Room problem—he meant [that] when they created submarines, they learned principles of swimming from fish. But then they created something that swims farther and faster and carries a huge payload, so it’s really much more powerful than fish.
It doesn’t reproduce and it doesn’t do some of the miraculous things fish do, but as far as swimming, it does it.  Does an airplane fly? Well, the aviation pioneers used principles of flight from birds, but quickly went beyond that, to create things that fly farther and faster and carry a huge payload.
I don’t think it matters. So, two answers to your question. One is, I don’t think it matters. And I don’t think it’s possible that a machine will think qualitatively as we do. So, I think it will think farther and faster and carry a huge payload. I think it’s possible for a machine to be generally intelligent in a variety of domains.
We can see intelligence growing in a bunch of domains. If you think of them as rippling pools, ripples in a pool, like different circles of expertise ultimately joining, you can see how general intelligence is sort of demonstrably on its way.
Whether or not it thinks like a human, I think it won’t. And I think that’s a danger, because I think it won’t have our mammalian sense of empathy. It’ll also be good, because it won’t have a lot of sentimentality, and a lot of cognitive biases that our brains are labored with. But you said it won’t have volition. And I don’t think we can bet on that.
In my book, Our Final Invention, I interviewed at length Steve Omohundro, who’s taken upon himself—he’s an AI maker and physicist—and he’d taken it upon himself to create more or less a science for understanding super intelligent machines. Or machines that are more intelligent than we are.
And among the things that he argues for, using rational-age and economic theory—and I won’t go into that whole thing—but it’s in Our Final Invention, it’s also in Steve Omohundro’s many websites. Machines that are self-aware and are self-programming, he thinks, will develop basic drives that are not unlike our own.
And they include things like self-protection, creativity, efficiency with resources,and other drives that will make them very challenging to control—unless we get ahead of the game and create this science for understanding them, as he’s doing.
Right now, computers are not generally intelligent, they are not conscious. All the limitations of the Chinese Room, they have. But I think it’s unrealistic to think that we are frozen in development. I think it’s very realistic to think that we’ll create machines whose cognitive abilities match and then outstrip our own.
But, just kind of going a little deeper on the question. So we have this idea of intelligence, which there is no consensus definition on it. Then within that, you have human intelligence—which, again, is something we certainly don’t understand. Human intelligence comes from our brain, which is—people say—‘the most complicated object in the galaxy’.
We don’t understand how it works. We don’t know how thoughts are encoded. We know incredibly little, in the grand scheme of things, about how the brain works. But we do know that humans have these amazing abilities, like consciousness, and the ability to generalize intelligence very effortlessly. We have something that certainly feels like free will, we certainly have something that feels like… and all of that.
Then on the other hand, you think back to a clockwork, right? You wind up a clock back in the olden days and it just ran a bunch of gears. And while it may be true that the computers of the day add more gears and have more things, all we’re doing is winding it up and letting it go.
And, isn’t it, like… not only a stretch, not only a supposition, not only just sensationalistic, to say, “Oh no, no. Someday we’ll add enough gears that, you wind that thing up, and it’s actually going to be a lot smarter than you.”
Isn’t that, I mean at least it’s fair to say there’s absolutely nothing we understand about human intelligence, and human consciousness, and human will… that even remotely implies that something that’s a hundred percent mechanical, a hundred percent deterministic, a hundred percent… Just wind it and it doesn’t do anything. But…
Well, you’re wrong about being a hundred percent deterministic, and it’s not really a hundred percent mechanical. When you talk about things like will, will is such an anthropomorphic term, I’m not sure if we can really, if we can attribute it to computers.
Well, I’m specifically saying we have something that feels and seems like will, that we don’t understand.
If you look, if you look at artificial neural nets, there’s a great deal about them we don’t understand. We know what the inputs are, and we know what the outputs are; and when we want to make better output—like a better translation—we know how to adjust the inputs. But we don’t know what’s going on in a multilayered neural net system. We don’t know what’s going on in a high resolution way. And that’s why they’re called black box systems, and evolutionary algorithms.
In evolutionary algorithms, we have a sense of how they work. We have a sense of how they combine pieces of algorithms, how we introduce mutations. But often, we don’t understand the output, and we certainly don’t understand how it got there, so that’s not completely deterministic. There’s a bunch of stuff we can’t really determine in there.
And I think we’ve got a lot of unexplained behavior in computers that’s, at this stage, we simply attribute to our lack of understanding. But I think in the longer term, we’ll see that computers are doing things on their own. I’m talking about a lot of the algorithms on Wall Street, a lot of the flash crashes we’ve seen, a lot of the cognitive architectures. There’s not one person who can describe the whole system… the ‘quants’, they call them, or the guys that are programming Wall Street’s algorithms.
They’ve already gone, in complexity, beyond any individual’s ability to really strip them down.
So, we’re surrounded by systems of immense power. Gartner and company think that in the AI space—because of the exponential nature of the investment… I think it started out, and it’s doubled every year since 2009—Gartner estimates that by 2025, that space will be worth twenty-five trillion dollars of value. So to me, that’s a couple of things.
That anticipates enormous growth, and enormous growth in power in what these systems will do. We’re in an era now that’s different from other eras. But it is like other Industrial Revolutions. We’re in an era now where everything that’s electrified—to paraphrase Kevin Kelly, the futurist—everything that’s electrified is being cognitized.
We can’t pretend that it will always be like a clock. Even now it’s not like a clock. A clock you can take apart, and you can understand every piece of it.
The cognitive architectures we’re creating now… When Ferrucci was watching Watson play, and he said, “Why did he answer like that?” There’s nobody on his team that knew the answer. When it made mistakes… It did really, really well; it beat the humans. But comparing [that] to a clock, I think that’s the wrong metaphor.
Well, let’s just poke at it just one more minute, and then we can move on to something else. Is that really fair to say, that because humans don’t understand how it works, it must be somehow working differently than other machines?
Put another way, it is fair to say, because we’ve added enough gears now, that nobody could kind of keep them all straight. I mean nobody understands why the Google algorithm—even at Google—turns up what it does when you search. But nobody’s suggesting anything nondeterministic, nothing emergent, anything like that is happening.
I mean, our computers are completely deterministic, are they not?
I don’t think that they are. I think if they were completely deterministic, then enough brains put together could figure out a multi-tiered neural net, and I don’t think there’s any evidence that we can right now.
Well, that’s exciting.  
I’m not saying that it’s coming up with brilliant new ideas… But a system that’s so sophisticated that it defeats Go, and teaches grandmasters new ideas about Go—which is what the grandmaster who it defeated three out of four times said—[he] said, “I have new insights about this game,” that nobody could explain what it was doing, but it was thinking creatively in a way that we don’t understand.
Go is not like chess. On a chess board, I don’t know how many possible positions there are, but it’s calculable. On a Go board, it’s incalculable. There are more—I’ve heard it said, and I don’t really understand it very well—I heard it said there are more possible positions on a Go board than there are atoms in the universe.
So when it’s beating Go masters… Therefore, playing the game requires a great deal of intuition. It’s not just pattern-matching. Like, I’ve played a million games of Go—and that’s sort of what chess is [pattern-matching].
You know, the grandmasters are people who have seen every board you could possibly come up with. They’ve probably seen it before, and they know what to do. Go’s not like that. It requires a lot more undefinable intuition.
And so we’re moving rapidly into that territory. The program that beat the Go masters is called AlphaGo. It comes out of DeepMind. DeepMind was bought four years ago by Google. Going deep into reinforcement learning and artificial neural nets, I think your argument would be apt if we were talking about some of the old languages—Fortran, Basic, Pascal—where you could look at every line of code and figure out what was going on.
That’s no longer possible, and you’ve got Go grandmasters saying “I learned new insights.” So we’re in a brave new world here.
So you had a great part of the book, where you do a really smart kind of roll-up of when we may have an AGI. Where you went into different ideas behind it. And the question I’m really curious about is this: On the one hand, you have Elon Musk saying we can have it much sooner than you think. You have Stephen Hawking, who you quoted. You have Bill Gates saying he’s worried about it.
So you have all of these people who say it’s soon, it’s real, and it’s potentially scary. We need to watch what we do. Then on the other camp, you have people who are equally immersed in the technology, equally smart, equally, equally, equally all these other things… like Andrew Ng, who up until recently headed up AI at Baidu, who says worrying about AGI is like worrying about overpopulation on Mars. You have other people saying the soonest it could possibly happen is five hundred years from now.
So I’m curious about this. Why do you think, among these big brains, super smart people, why do they have… What is it that they believe or know or think, or whatever, that gives them such radically different views about this technology? How do you get your head around why they differ?
Excellent question. I first heard that Mars analogy from, I think it was Sebastian Thrun, who said we don’t know how to get to Mars. We don’t know how to live on Mars. But we know how to get a rocket to the moon, and gradually and slowly, little by little—No, it was Peter Norvig, who wrote the sort of standard text on artificial intelligence, called AI: A Modern Approach.
He said, you know, “We can’t live on Mars yet, but we’re putting the rockets together. Some companies are putting in some money. We’re eventually going to get to Mars, and there’ll be people living on Mars, and then people will be setting another horizon.” We haven’t left our solar system yet.
It’s a very interesting question, and very timely, about when will we achieve human-level intelligence in a machine, if ever. I did a poll about it. It was kind of a biased poll; it was of people who were at a conference about AGI, about artificial general intelligence. And then I’ve seen a lot of polls, and there’s two points to this.
One is the polls go all over the place. Some people said… Ray Kurzweil says 2029. Ray Kurzweil’s been very good at anticipating the progress of technology, he says 2029. Ray Kurzweil’s working for Google right now—this is parenthetically—he said he wants to create a machine that makes three hundred trillion calculations per second, and to share that with a billion people online. So what’s that? That’s basically reverse engineering of a brain.
Making three hundred trillion calculations per second, which is sort of a rough estimate of what a brain does. And then sharing it with a billion people online, which is making superintelligence a service, which would be incredibly useful. You could do pharmacological research. You could do really advanced weather modeling, and climate modeling. You could do weapons research, you could develop incredible weapons. He says 2029.
Some people said one hundred years from now. The mean date that I got was about 2045 for human-level intelligence in a machine. And then my book, Our Final Invention, got reviewed by Gary Marcus in the New Yorker, and he said something that stuck with me. He said whether or not it’s ten years or one hundred years, the more important question is: What happens next?
Will it be integrated into our lives? Or will it suddenly appear? How are we positioned for our own safety and security when it appears, whether it’s in fifty years or one hundred? So I think about it as… Nobody thought Go was going to be beaten for another ten years.
And here’s another way… So those are the two ways to think about it: one is, there’s a lot of guesses; and two, does it really matter what happens next? But the third part of that is this, and I write about it in Our Final Invention: If we don’t achieve it in one hundred years, do you think we’re just going to stop? Or do you think we’re going to keep beating at this problem until we solve it?
And as I said before, I don’t think we’re going to create exactly human-like intelligence in a machine. I think we’re going to create something extremely smart and extremely useful, to some extent, but something we, in a very deep way, don’t understand. So I don’t think it’ll be like human intelligence… it will be like an alien intelligence.
So that’s kind of where I am on that. I think it could happen in a variety of timelines. It doesn’t really matter when, and we’re not going to stop until we get there. So ultimately, we’re going to be confronted with machines that are a thousand or a million times more intelligent than we are.
And what are we going to do?
Well, I guess the underlying assumption is… it speaks to the credibility of the forecast, right? Like, if there’s a lab, and they’re working on inventing the lightbulb, like: “We’re trying to build the incandescent light bulb.” And you go in there and you say, “When will you have the incandescent light bulb?” and they say “Three or four weeks, five weeks. Five weeks tops, we’re going to have it.”  
Or if they say, “Uh, a hundred years. It may be five hundred, I don’t know.” I mean in those things you take a completely different view of, do we understand the problem? Do we know what we’re building? Do we know how to build an AGI? Do we even have a clue?
Do you believe… or here, let me ask it this way: Do you think an AGI is just an evolutionary… Like, we have AlphaGo, we have Watson, and we’re making them better every day. And eventually, that kind of becomes—gradually—this AGI. Or do you think there’s some “A-ha” thing we don’t know how to do, and at some point we’re like “Oh, here’s how you do it! And this is how you get a synapse to work.”
So, do you think we are nineteen revolutionary breakthroughs away, or “No, no, no, we’re on the path. We’re going to be there in three to five years.”?
Ben Goertzel, who is definitely in the race to make AGI—I interviewed him in my book—said we need some sort of breakthrough. And then we got to artificial neural nets and deep learning, and deep learning combined with reinforcement learning, which is an older technique, and that was kind of a breakthrough. And then people started to beat—IBM’s Deep Blue—to beat chess, it really was just looking up tables of positions.
But to beat Go, as we’ve discussed, was something different.
I think we’ve just had a big breakthrough. I don’t know how many revolutions we are away from a breakthrough that makes intelligence general. But let me give you this… the way I think about it.
There’s long been talk in the AI community about an algorithm… I don’t know exactly what they call it. But it’s basically an open-domain problem-solver that asks something simple like, what’s the next best move? What’s the next best thing to do? Best being based on some goals that you’ve got. What’s the next best thing to do?
Well, that’s sort of how DeepMind took on all the Atari games. They could drop the algorithm into a game, and it didn’t even know the rules. It just noticed when it was scoring or not scoring, and so it was figuring out what’s the next best thing to do.
Well if you can drop it into every Atari game, and then you drop it into something that’s many orders of magnitude above it, like Go, then why are we so far from dropping that into a robot and setting it out into the environment, and having it learn the environment and learn common sense about the environment—like, “Things go under, and things go over; and I can’t jump into the tree; I can climb the tree.”
It seems to me that general intelligence might be as simple as a program that says “What’s the next best thing to do?” And then it learns the environment, and then it solves problems in the environment.
So some people are going about that by training algorithms, artificial neural net systems and defeating games. Some people are really trying to reverse-engineer a brain, one neuron at a time. That’s sort of, in a nutshell—to vastly overgeneralize—that’s called the bottom-up, and the top-down approach for creating AGI.
So are we a certain number of revolutions away, or are we going to be surprised? I’m surprised a little too frequently for my own comfort about how fast things are moving. Faster than when I was writing the book. I’m wondering what the next milestone is. I think the Turing Test has not been achieved, or even close. I think that’s a good milestone.
It wouldn’t surprise me if IBM, which is great at issuing itself grand challenges and then beating them… But what’s great about IBM is, they’re upfront. They take on a big challenge… You know, they were beaten—Deep Blue was beaten several times before it won. When they took on Jeopardy, they weren’t sure they were going to win, but they had the chutzpah to get out there and say, “We’re gonna try.” And then they won.
I bet IBM will say, “You know what, in 2020, we’re going to take on the Turing Test. And we’re going to have a machine that you can’t tell that it’s a machine. You can’t tell the difference between a machine and a human.”
So, I’m surprised all the time. I don’t know how far or how close we are, but I’d say I come at it from a position of caution. So I would say, the window in which we have to create safe AI is closing.
Yes, no… I’m with you; I was just taking that in. I’ll insert some ominous “Dun, dun, dun…” Take that a little further.
Everybody has a role to play in this conversation, and mine happens to be canary in a coal mine. Despite the title of my book, I really like AI. I like its potential. Medical potential. I don’t like its war potential… If we see autonomous battlefield robots on the battlefield, you know what’s going to happen. Like every other piece of used military equipment, it’s going to come home.
Well, the thing is, about the military… and the thing about technology is…If you told my dad that he would invite into his home a representative of Google, and that representative would sit in a chair in a corner of the house, and he would take down everything we said, and would sell that data to our insurance company, so our insurance rates might go up… and it would sell that data to mortgage bankers, so they might cut off our ability to get a mortgage… because dad talks about going bankrupt, or dad talks about his heart condition… and he can’t get insurance anymore.
But if we hire a corporate guy, and we pay for it, and put him in our living room… Well, that’s exactly what we’re doing with Amazon Echo, with all the digital assistants. All this data is being gathered all the time, and it’s being sold… Buying and selling data is a four billion dollar-a-year industry. So we’re doing really foolish things with this technology. Things that are bad for our own interests.
So let me ask you an open-ended question… prognostication over shorter time frames is always easier. Tell me what you think is in store for the world, I don’t know, between now and 2030, the next thirteen years. Talk to me about unemployment, talk to me about economics, all of that. Tell me the next thirteen years.
Well, brace yourself for some futurism, which is a giant gamble and often wrong. To paraphrase Kevin Kelly again, everything that’s electrical will be cognitized. Our economy will be dramatically shaped by the ubiquity of artificial intelligence. With the Internet of Things, with the intelligence of everything around us—our phones, our cars…
I can already talk to my car. I’m inside my car, I can ask for directions, I can do some other basic stuff. That’s just going to get smarter, until my car drives itself. A lot of people… MIT did a study, that was quoting a Cambridge study, that said: “Forty-five percent of our jobs will be able to be replaced within twenty years.” I think they downgraded that to like ten years.
Not that they will be replaced, but they will be able to be replaced. But when AI is a twenty-five trillion dollar—when it’s worth twenty-five trillion dollars in 2025—everybody will be able to do anything, will be able to replace any employee that’s doing anything that’s remotely repetitive, and this includes doctors and lawyers… We’ll be able to replace them with the AI.
And this cuts deep into the middle class. This isn’t just people working in factories or driving cars. This is all accountants, this is a lot of the doctors, this is a lot of the lawyers. So we’re going to see giant dislocation, or giant disruption, in the economy. And giant money being made by fewer and fewer people.
And the trouble with that is, that we’ve got to figure out a way to keep a huge part of our population from starving, from not making a wage. People have proposed a basic minimum income, but to do that we would need tax revenue. And the big companies, Amazon, Google, Facebook, they pay taxes in places like Ireland, where there’s very low corporate tax. They don’t pay taxes where they get their wealth. So they don’t contribute to your roads.
Google is not contributing to your road system. Amazon is not contributing to your water supply, or to making your country safe. So there’s a giant inequity there. So we have to confront that inequity and, unfortunately, that is going to require political solutions, and our politicians are about the most technologically-backward people in our culture.
So, what I see is, a lot of unemployment. I see a lot of nifty things coming out of AI, and I am willing to be surprised by job creation in AI, and robotics, and automation. And I’d like to be surprised by that. But the general trend is… When you replace the biggest contract manufacturer in the world… Foxconn just replaced thirty-thousand people in Asia with thirty-thousand robots.
And all those people can’t be retrained, because if you’re doing something that’s that repetitive, and that mechanical… what can you be retrained to do? Well, maybe one out of every hundred could be a floor manager in a robot factory, but what about all the others? Disruption is going to come from all the people that don’t have jobs, and there’s nothing to be retrained to.
Because our robots are made in factories where robots make the robots. Our cars are made in factories where robots make the cars.
Isn’t that the same argument they used during the Industrial Revolution, when they said, “You got ninety percent of people out there who are farmers, and we’re going to lose all these farm jobs… And you don’t expect those farmers are going to, like, come work in a factory, where they have to learn completely new things.”
Well, what really happened in the different technology revolutions, back from the cotton gin onward is, a small sector… The Industrial Revolution didn’t suddenly put farms out of business. A hundred years ago, ninety percent of people worked on farms, now it’s ten percent.
But what happened with the Industrial Revolution is, sector by sector, it took away jobs, but then those people could retrain, and could go to other sectors, because there were still giant sectors that weren’t replaced by industrialization. There was still a lot of manual labor to do. And some of them could be trained upwards, into management and other things.
This, as the author Ford wrote in The Rise of Robots—and there’s also a great book called The Fourth Industrial Age. As they both argue, what’s different about this revolution is that AI works in every industry. So it’s not like the old revolutions, where one sector was replaced at a time, and there was time to absorb that change, time to reabsorb those workers and retrain them in some fashion.
But everybody is going to be… My point is, all sectors of the economy are going to be hit at once. The ubiquity of AI is going to impact a lot of the economy, all at the same time, and there is going to be a giant dislocation all at the same time. And it’s very unclear, unlike in the old days, how those people can be retrained and retargeted for jobs. So, I think it’s very different from other Industrial Revolutions, or rather technology revolutions.
Other than the adoption of coal—it went from generating five percent to eighty percent of all of our power in twenty years—the electrification of industry happened incredibly fast. Mechanization, replacement of animal power with mechanical power, happened incredibly fast. And yet, unemployment remains between four and nine percent in this country.
Other than the Depression, without ever even hiccupping—like, no matter what disruption, no matter what speed you threw at it—the economy never couldn’t just use that technology to create more jobs. And isn’t that maybe a lack of imagination that says “Well, no, now we’re out. And no more jobs to create. Or not ones that these people who’ve been displaced can do.”
I mean, isn’t that what people would’ve said for two hundred years?
Yes, that’s a somewhat persuasive argument. I think you’ve got a point that the economy was able to absorb those jobs, and the unemployment remained steady. I do think this is different. I think it’s a kind of a puzzle, and we’ll have to see what happens. But I can’t imagine… Where do professional drivers… they’re not unskilled, but they’re right next to it. And it’s the job of choice for people who don’t have a lot of education.
What do you retrain professional drivers to do once their jobs are taken? It’s not going to be factory work, it’s not going to be simple accounting. It’s not going to be anything repetitive, because that’s going to be the job of automation and AI.
So I anticipate problems, but I’d love to be pleasantly surprised. If it worked like the old days, then all those people that were cut off the farm would go to work in the factories, and make Ford automobiles, and make enough money to buy one. I don’t see all those driverless people going off to factories to make cars, or to manufacture anything.
A case in point of what’s happening is… Rethink Robotics, which is Rodney Brooks’ company, just built something called Baxter; and now Baxter is a generation old, and I can’t think of what replaced it. But it costs about twenty-two thousand dollars to get one of these robots. These robots cost basically what a minimum wage worker makes in a year. But they work 24/7, so they really replace three shifts, so they really are replacing three people.
Where do those people go? Do they go to shops that make Baxter? Or maybe you’re right, maybe it’s a failure of imagination to not be able to anticipate the jobs that would be created by Baxter and by autonomous cars. Right now, it’s failing a lot of people’s imagination. And there are not ready answers.
I mean, if it were 1995 and the Internet was, you’re just hearing about it, just getting online, just hearing it… And somebody said, “You know what? There’s going to be a lot of companies that just come out and make hundreds of billions of dollars, one after the other, all because we’ve learned how to connect computers and use this hypertext protocol to communicate.” I mean, that would not have seemed like a reasonable surmise.
No, and that’s a great example. If you were told that trillions of dollars of value are going to come out of this invention, who would’ve thought? And maybe I personally, just can’t imagine the next wave that is going to create that much value. I can see how AI and automation will create a lot of value, I only see it going into a few pockets though. I don’t see it being distributed in any way that the Silicon Valley startups, at least initially, were.
So let’s talk about you for a moment. Your background is in documentary filmmaking. Do you see yourself returning to that world? What are you working on, another book? What kind of thing is keeping you busy by day right now?
Well, I like making documentary films. I just had one on PBS last year… If you Google “Spillover” and “PBS” you can see it is streaming online. It was about spillover diseases—Ebola, Zika and others—and it was about the Ebola crisis, and how viruses spread. And then now I’m working on a film about paleontology, about a recent discovery that’s kind of secret, that I can’t talk about… from sixty-six million years ago.
And I am starting to work on another book that I can’t talk about. So I am keeping an eye on AI, because this issue is… Despite everything I talk about, I really like the technology; I think it’s pretty amazing.
Well, let’s close with, give me a scenario that you think is plausible, that things work out. That we have something that looks like full employment, and…
Good, Byron. That’s a great way to go out. I see people getting individually educated about the promise and peril of AI, so that we as a culture are ready for the revolution that’s coming. And that forces businesses to be responsible, and politicians to be savvy, about developments in artificial intelligence. Then they invest some money to make artificial intelligence advancement transparent and safe.
And therefore, when we get to machines that are as smart as humans, that [they] are actually our allies, and never our competitors. And that somehow on top of this giant wedding cake I’m imagining, we also manage to keep full employment, or nearly-full employment. Because we’re aware, and because we’re working all the time to make sure that the future is kind to humans.
Alright, well, that is a great place to leave it. I am going to thank you very much.
Well, thank you. Great questions. I really enjoyed the back-and-forth.
Byron explores issues around artificial intelligence and conscious computers in his upcoming book The Fourth Age, to be published in April by Atria, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. Pre-order a copy here. 
Voices in AI
Visit VoicesInAI.com to access the podcast, or subscribe now:
iTunes
Play
Stitcher
RSS
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cropped-voices-background.jpg) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed:last-of-type { margin-bottom: 0; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { margin-top: .25rem; display: block; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/voices-in-ai-logo-light-768x264.png) center left no-repeat; background-size: contain; width: 100%; padding-bottom: 30%; text-indent: -9999rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem } @media (min-width: 960px) { .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { width: 262px; height: 90px; float: left; margin-right: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 0; padding-bottom: 0; } } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:visited { color: #FF6B00; } .voice-in-ai-link-back a:hover { color: #ff4f00; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links { margin-left: 0 !important; margin-right: 0 !important; margin-bottom: 0.25rem; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:visited { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.77); } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:hover { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.63); } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links .stitcher .stitcher-logo { display: inline; width: auto; fill: currentColor; height: 1em; margin-bottom: -.15em; }
0 notes
babbleuk · 7 years
Text
Voices in AI – Episode 17: A Conversation with James Barrat
Today's leading minds talk AI with host Byron Reese
.voice-in-ai-byline-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cropped-voices-background.jpg) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; } .voice-in-ai-byline-embed span { color: #FF6B00; }
In this episode, Byron and James talk about jobs, human vs. artificial intelligence, and more.
-
-
0:00
0:00
0:00
var go_alex_briefing = { expanded: true, get_vars: {}, twitter_player: false, auto_play: false }; (function( $ ) { 'use strict'; go_alex_briefing.init = function() { this.build_get_vars(); if ( 'undefined' != typeof go_alex_briefing.get_vars['action'] ) { this.twitter_player = 'true'; } if ( 'undefined' != typeof go_alex_briefing.get_vars['auto_play'] ) { this.auto_play = go_alex_briefing.get_vars['auto_play']; } if ( 'true' == this.twitter_player ) { $( '#top-header' ).remove(); } var $amplitude_args = { 'songs': [{"name":"Episode 17: A Conversation with James Barrat","artist":"Byron Reese","album":"Voices in AI","url":"https:\/\/voicesinai.s3.amazonaws.com\/2017-10-30-(00-54-11)-james-barrat.mp3","live":false,"cover_art_url":"https:\/\/voicesinai.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/10\/voices-headshot-card-3-1.jpg"}], 'default_album_art': 'https://gigaom.com/wp-content/plugins/go-alexa-briefing/components/external/amplify/images/no-cover-large.png' }; if ( 'true' == this.auto_play ) { $amplitude_args.autoplay = true; } Amplitude.init( $amplitude_args ); this.watch_controls(); }; go_alex_briefing.watch_controls = function() { $( '#small-player' ).hover( function() { $( '#small-player-middle-controls' ).show(); $( '#small-player-middle-meta' ).hide(); }, function() { $( '#small-player-middle-controls' ).hide(); $( '#small-player-middle-meta' ).show(); }); $( '#top-header' ).hover(function(){ $( '#top-header' ).show(); $( '#small-player' ).show(); }, function(){ }); $( '#small-player-toggle' ).click(function(){ $( '.hidden-on-collapse' ).show(); $( '.hidden-on-expanded' ).hide(); /* Is expanded */ go_alex_briefing.expanded = true; }); $('#top-header-toggle').click(function(){ $( '.hidden-on-collapse' ).hide(); $( '.hidden-on-expanded' ).show(); /* Is collapsed */ go_alex_briefing.expanded = false; }); // We're hacking it a bit so it works the way we want $( '#small-player-toggle' ).click(); $( '#top-header-toggle' ).hide(); }; go_alex_briefing.build_get_vars = function() { if( document.location.toString().indexOf( '?' ) !== -1 ) { var query = document.location .toString() // get the query string .replace(/^.*?\?/, '') // and remove any existing hash string (thanks, @vrijdenker) .replace(/#.*$/, '') .split('&'); for( var i=0, l=query.length; i<l; i++ ) { var aux = decodeURIComponent( query[i] ).split( '=' ); this.get_vars[ aux[0] ] = aux[1]; } } }; $( function() { go_alex_briefing.init(); }); })( jQuery ); .go-alexa-briefing-player { margin-bottom: 3rem; margin-right: 0; float: none; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-header { width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; min-height: 50px; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-large-album { width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; height: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; z-index: 0; margin-top: 50px; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#top-large-album img#large-album-art { width: 100%; height: auto; border-radius: 0; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player { margin-top: 38px; width: 100%; max-width: 1000px; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player div#small-player-full-bottom-info { width: 90%; text-align: center; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player div#small-player-full-bottom-info div#song-time-visualization-large { width: 75%; } .go-alexa-briefing-player div#small-player-full-bottom { background-color: #f2f2f2; border-bottom-left-radius: 5px; border-bottom-right-radius: 5px; height: 57px; }
Voices in AI
Visit VoicesInAI.com to access the podcast, or subscribe now:
iTunes
Play
Stitcher
RSS
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cropped-voices-background.jpg) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed:last-of-type { margin-bottom: 0; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { margin-top: .25rem; display: block; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/voices-in-ai-logo-light-768x264.png) center left no-repeat; background-size: contain; width: 100%; padding-bottom: 30%; text-indent: -9999rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem } @media (min-width: 960px) { .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { width: 262px; height: 90px; float: left; margin-right: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 0; padding-bottom: 0; } } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:visited { color: #FF6B00; } .voice-in-ai-link-back a:hover { color: #ff4f00; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links { margin-left: 0 !important; margin-right: 0 !important; margin-bottom: 0.25rem; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:visited { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.77); } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:hover { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.63); } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links .stitcher .stitcher-logo { display: inline; width: auto; fill: currentColor; height: 1em; margin-bottom: -.15em; }
Byron Reese: Hello, this is Voices in AI, brought to you by Gigaom. I am Byron Reese. Today I am so excited that our guest is James Barrat. He wrote a book called Our Final Invention, subtitled Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era. James Barratt is also a renowned documentary filmmaker, as well as an author. Welcome to the show, James.
James Barrat: Hello.
So, let’s start off with, what is artificial intelligence?
Very good question. Basically, artificial intelligence is when machines perform tasks that are normally ascribed to human intelligence. I have a very simple definition of intelligence that I like. Because ‘artificial intelligence’—the definition just throws the ideas back to humans, and [to] human intelligence, which is the intelligence we know the most about.
The definition I like is: intelligence is the ability to achieve goals in a variety of novel environments, and to learn. And that’s a simple definition, but a lot is packed into it. Your intelligence has to achieve goals, it has to do something—whether that’s play Go, or drive a car, or solve proofs, or navigate, or identify objects. And if it doesn’t have some goal that it achieves, it’s not very useful intelligence.
If it can achieve goals in a variety of environments, if it can do object recognition and do navigation and do car-driving like our intelligence can, then it’s better intelligence. So, it’s goal-achieving in a bunch of novel environments, and then it learns. And that’s probably the most important part. Intelligence learns and it builds on its learning.
And you wrote a widely well-received book, Artificial Intelligence: Our Final Invention. Can you explain to the audience just your overall thesis, and the main ideas of the book?
Sure. Our Final Invention is basically making the argument that AI is a dual-use technology. A dual-use technology is one that can be used for great good, or great harm. Right now we’re in a real honeymoon phase of AI, where we’re seeing a lot of nifty tools come out of it, and a lot more are on the horizon. AI, right now, can find cancer clusters in x-rays better than humans. It can do business analytics better than humans. AI is doing what first year legal associates do, it’s doing legal discovery.
So we are finding a lot of really useful applications. It’s going to make us all better drivers, because we won’t be driving anymore. But it’s a dual-use technology because, for one thing, it’s going to be taking a lot of jobs. You know, there are five million professional drivers in the United States, seven million back-office accountants—those jobs are going to go away. And a lot of others.
So the thesis of my book is that we need to look under the hood of AI, look at its applications, look who’s controlling it, and then in a longer term, look at whether or not we can control it at all.
Let’s start with that point and work backwards. That’s an ominous statement. Can we record it at all? What are you thinking there?
Can we control it at all.
I’m sorry, yes. Control it at all.
Well, let me start, I prefer to start the other way. Stephen Hawking said that the trouble with AI is, in the short term, who controls it, and in the long term, can we control it at all? And in the short term, we’ve already suffered some from AI. You know, the NSA recently was accessing your phone data and mine, and getting your phone book and mine. And it was, basically, seizing our phone records, and that used to be illegal.
Used to be that if I wanted to seize, to get your phone records, I needed to go to a court, and get a court order. And that was to avoid abridging the Fourth Amendment, which prevents illegal search and seizure of property. Your phone messages are your property. The NSA went around that, and grabbed our phone messages and our phone data, and they are able to sift through this ocean of data because of AI, because of advanced data mining software.
One other example—and there are many—one other example of, in the short term, who controls the AI, is, right now there are a lot of countries developing battlefield robots and drones that will be autonomous. And these are robots and drones that kill people without a human in the loop.  And these are AI issues. There are fifty-six nations developing battlefield robots.
The most sought after will be autonomous battlefield robots. There was an article just a couple of days ago about how the Marines have a robot that shoots a machinegun on a battlefield. They control it with a tablet, but their goal, as stated there, is to make it autonomous, to work on its own.
In the longer-term we, I’ll put it in the way that Arthur C. Clark put it to me, when I interviewed him. Arthur C. Clark was a mathematician and a physicist before he was a science fiction writer. And he created the HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, probably the most famous homicidal AI. And he said, when I asked him about the control problem of artificial intelligence, he said something like this: He said, “We humans steer the future not because we are the fastest or the strongest creatures, but because we are the most intelligent. And when we share the planet with something that’s more intelligent than we are, it will steer the future.”
So the problem we’re facing, the problem we’re on the cusp of, I can simplify it with a concept called ‘the intelligence explosion’. The intelligence explosion was an idea created by a statistician named I. J. Good in the 1960s. He said, “Once we create machines that do everything as well or better than humans, one of the things they’ll do is create smart machines.”
And we’ve seen artificial intelligence systems slowly begin to do things better than we do, and it’s not a stretch to think about a time to come, when artificial intelligence systems do advanced AI research and development better that humans. And I. J. Good said, “Then, when that happens, we humans will no longer set the pace of intelligence advancement, it will be machines that will set the pace of advancement.”
The trouble of that is, we know nothing about how to control a machine, or a cognitive architecture, that’s a thousand or million times more intelligent than we are. We have no experience with anything like that. We can look around us for analogies in the animal world.
How do we treat things that we’re a thousand times more intelligent than? Well, we treat all animals in a very negligent way. And the smart ones are either endangered, or they’re in zoos, or we eat them. That’s a very human-centric analogy, but I think it’s probably appropriate.
Let’s push on this just a little bit.  So do you…
Sure.
Do you believe… Some people say ‘AI’ is kind of this specter of a term now, that, it isn’t really anything different than any other computer programs we’ve ever run, right? It’s better and faster and all of that, but it isn’t qualitatively anything different than what we’ve had for decades.
And so why do you think that? And when you say that AIs are going to be smarter than us, a million times smarter than us, ‘smarter’ is also a really nebulous term.
I mean, they may be able to do some incredibly narrow thing better than us. I may not be able to drive a car as well as an AI, but that doesn’t mean that same AI is going to beat me at Parcheesi. So what do you think is different? Why isn’t this just incrementally… Because so far, we haven’t had any trouble.
What do you think is going to be the catalyst, or what is qualitatively different about what we are dealing with now?
Sure. Well, there’s a lot of interesting questions packed into what you just said. And one thing you said—which I think is important to draw out—is that there are many kinds of intelligence. There’s emotional intelligence, there’s rational intelligence, there’s instinctive and animal intelligence.
And so, when I say something will be much more intelligent than we are, I’m using a shorthand for: It will be better at our definition of intelligence, it will be better at solving problems in a variety of novel environments, it will be better at learning.
And to put what you asked in another way, you’re saying that there is an irreducible promise and peril to every technology, including computers. All technologies, back to fire, have some good points and some bad points. AI I find qualitatively different. And I’ll argue by analogy, for a second. AI to me is like nuclear fission. Nuclear fission is a dual-use technology capable of great good and great harm.
Nuclear fission is the power behind atom bombs and behind nuclear reactors. When we were developing it in the ‘20s and ‘30s, we thought that nuclear fission was a way to get free energy by splitting the atom. Then it was quickly weaponized. And then we used it to incinerate cities. And then we as a species held a gun at our own heads for fifty years with the arms race. We threatened to make ourselves extinct. And that almost succeeded a number of times, and that struggle isn’t over.
To me, AI is a lot more like that. You said it hasn’t been used for nefarious reasons, and I totally disagree. I gave you an example with the NSA. A couple of weeks ago, Facebook was caught up because they were targeting emotionally-challenged and despairing children for advertising.
To me, that’s extremely exploitative. It’s a rather soulless and exploitative commercial application of artificial intelligence. So I think these pitfalls are around us. They’re already taking place. So I think the qualitative difference with artificial intelligence is that intelligence is our superpower, the human superpower.
It’s the ability to be creative, the ability to invent technology. That was one thing Stephen Hawking brought up when he was asked about, “What are the pitfalls of artificial intelligence?”
He said, “Well, for one thing, they’ll be able to develop weapons we don’t even understand.” So, I think the qualitative difference is that AI is the invention that creates inventions. And we’re on the cusp, this is happening now, and we’re on the cusp of an AI revolution, it’s going to bring us great profit and also great vulnerability.
You’re no doubt familiar with Searle’s “Chinese Room” kind of question, but all of the readers, all of the listeners might not be… So let me set that up, and then get your thought on it. It goes like this:
There’s a person in a room, a giant room full of very special books. And he doesn’t—we’ll call him the librarian—and the librarian doesn’t speak a word of Chinese. He’s absolutely unfamiliar with the language.
And people slide him questions under the door which are written in Chinese, and what he does—what he’s learned to do—is to look at the first character in that message, and he finds the book, of the tens of thousands that he has, that has that on the spine. And in that book he looks up the second character. And the book then says, “Okay, go pull this book.”
And in that book he looks up the third, and the fourth, and the fifth, all the way until he gets to the end. And when he gets to the end, it says “Copy this down.” And so he copies these characters again that he doesn’t understand, doesn’t have any clue whatsoever what they are.
He copies them down very carefully, very faithfully, slides it back under the door… Somebody’s outside who picks it up, a Chinese speaker. They read it, and it’s just brilliant! It’s just absolutely brilliant! It rhymes, it’s Haiku, I mean it’s just awesome!
Now, the question, the kind of ta-da question at the end is: Does the man, does the librarian understand Chinese? Does he understand Chinese?
Now, many people in the computer world would say yes. I mean, Alan Turing would say yes, right?  The Chinese room passes the Turing Test. The Chinese speakers outside, as far as they know, they are conversing with a Chinese speaker.
So do you think the man understands Chinese? And do you think… And if he doesn’t understand Chinese… Because obviously, the analogy of it is: that’s all that computer does. A computer doesn’t understand anything. It doesn’t know if it’s talking about cholera or coffee beans or anything whatsoever. It runs this program, and it has no idea what it’s doing.
And therefore it has no volition, and therefore it has no consciousness; therefore it has nothing that even remotely looks like human intelligence. So what would you just say to that?
The Chinese Room problem is fascinating, and you could write books about it, because it’s about the nature of consciousness. And what we don’t know about consciousness, you could fill many books with. And I used to think I wanted to explore consciousness, but it made exploring AI look easy.
I don’t know if it matters that the machine thinks as we do or not. I think the point is that it will be able to solve problems. We don’t know about the volition question. Let me give you another analogy. When Ferrucci, [when] he was the head of Team Watson, he was asked a very provocative question: “Was Watson thinking when it beat all those masters at Jeopardy?” And his answer was, “Does a submarine swim?”
And what he meant was—and this is the twist on on the Chinese Room problem—he meant [that] when they created submarines, they learned principles of swimming from fish. But then they created something that swims farther and faster and carries a huge payload, so it’s really much more powerful than fish.
It doesn’t reproduce and it doesn’t do some of the miraculous things fish do, but as far as swimming, it does it.  Does an airplane fly? Well, the aviation pioneers used principles of flight from birds, but quickly went beyond that, to create things that fly farther and faster and carry a huge payload.
I don’t think it matters. So, two answers to your question. One is, I don’t think it matters. And I don’t think it’s possible that a machine will think qualitatively as we do. So, I think it will think farther and faster and carry a huge payload. I think it’s possible for a machine to be generally intelligent in a variety of domains.
We can see intelligence growing in a bunch of domains. If you think of them as rippling pools, ripples in a pool, like different circles of expertise ultimately joining, you can see how general intelligence is sort of demonstrably on its way.
Whether or not it thinks like a human, I think it won’t. And I think that’s a danger, because I think it won’t have our mammalian sense of empathy. It’ll also be good, because it won’t have a lot of sentimentality, and a lot of cognitive biases that our brains are labored with. But you said it won’t have volition. And I don’t think we can bet on that.
In my book, Our Final Invention, I interviewed at length Steve Omohundro, who’s taken upon himself—he’s an AI maker and physicist—and he’d taken it upon himself to create more or less a science for understanding super intelligent machines. Or machines that are more intelligent than we are.
And among the things that he argues for, using rational-age and economic theory—and I won’t go into that whole thing—but it’s in Our Final Invention, it’s also in Steve Omohundro’s many websites. Machines that are self-aware and are self-programming, he thinks, will develop basic drives that are not unlike our own.
And they include things like self-protection, creativity, efficiency with resources,and other drives that will make them very challenging to control—unless we get ahead of the game and create this science for understanding them, as he’s doing.
Right now, computers are not generally intelligent, they are not conscious. All the limitations of the Chinese Room, they have. But I think it’s unrealistic to think that we are frozen in development. I think it’s very realistic to think that we’ll create machines whose cognitive abilities match and then outstrip our own.
But, just kind of going a little deeper on the question. So we have this idea of intelligence, which there is no consensus definition on it. Then within that, you have human intelligence—which, again, is something we certainly don’t understand. Human intelligence comes from our brain, which is—people say—‘the most complicated object in the galaxy’.
We don’t understand how it works. We don’t know how thoughts are encoded. We know incredibly little, in the grand scheme of things, about how the brain works. But we do know that humans have these amazing abilities, like consciousness, and the ability to generalize intelligence very effortlessly. We have something that certainly feels like free will, we certainly have something that feels like… and all of that.
Then on the other hand, you think back to a clockwork, right? You wind up a clock back in the olden days and it just ran a bunch of gears. And while it may be true that the computers of the day add more gears and have more things, all we’re doing is winding it up and letting it go.
And, isn’t it, like… not only a stretch, not only a supposition, not only just sensationalistic, to say, “Oh no, no. Someday we’ll add enough gears that, you wind that thing up, and it’s actually going to be a lot smarter than you.”
Isn’t that, I mean at least it’s fair to say there’s absolutely nothing we understand about human intelligence, and human consciousness, and human will… that even remotely implies that something that’s a hundred percent mechanical, a hundred percent deterministic, a hundred percent… Just wind it and it doesn’t do anything. But…
Well, you’re wrong about being a hundred percent deterministic, and it’s not really a hundred percent mechanical. When you talk about things like will, will is such an anthropomorphic term, I’m not sure if we can really, if we can attribute it to computers.
Well, I’m specifically saying we have something that feels and seems like will, that we don’t understand.
If you look, if you look at artificial neural nets, there’s a great deal about them we don’t understand. We know what the inputs are, and we know what the outputs are; and when we want to make better output—like a better translation—we know how to adjust the inputs. But we don’t know what’s going on in a multilayered neural net system. We don’t know what’s going on in a high resolution way. And that’s why they’re called black box systems, and evolutionary algorithms.
In evolutionary algorithms, we have a sense of how they work. We have a sense of how they combine pieces of algorithms, how we introduce mutations. But often, we don’t understand the output, and we certainly don’t understand how it got there, so that’s not completely deterministic. There’s a bunch of stuff we can’t really determine in there.
And I think we’ve got a lot of unexplained behavior in computers that’s, at this stage, we simply attribute to our lack of understanding. But I think in the longer term, we’ll see that computers are doing things on their own. I’m talking about a lot of the algorithms on Wall Street, a lot of the flash crashes we’ve seen, a lot of the cognitive architectures. There’s not one person who can describe the whole system… the ‘quants’, they call them, or the guys that are programming Wall Street’s algorithms.
They’ve already gone, in complexity, beyond any individual’s ability to really strip them down.
So, we’re surrounded by systems of immense power. Gartner and company think that in the AI space—because of the exponential nature of the investment… I think it started out, and it’s doubled every year since 2009—Gartner estimates that by 2025, that space will be worth twenty-five trillion dollars of value. So to me, that’s a couple of things.
That anticipates enormous growth, and enormous growth in power in what these systems will do. We’re in an era now that’s different from other eras. But it is like other Industrial Revolutions. We’re in an era now where everything that’s electrified—to paraphrase Kevin Kelly, the futurist—everything that’s electrified is being cognitized.
We can’t pretend that it will always be like a clock. Even now it’s not like a clock. A clock you can take apart, and you can understand every piece of it.
The cognitive architectures we’re creating now… When Ferrucci was watching Watson play, and he said, “Why did he answer like that?” There’s nobody on his team that knew the answer. When it made mistakes… It did really, really well; it beat the humans. But comparing [that] to a clock, I think that’s the wrong metaphor.
Well, let’s just poke at it just one more minute, and then we can move on to something else. Is that really fair to say, that because humans don’t understand how it works, it must be somehow working differently than other machines?
Put another way, it is fair to say, because we’ve added enough gears now, that nobody could kind of keep them all straight. I mean nobody understands why the Google algorithm—even at Google—turns up what it does when you search. But nobody’s suggesting anything nondeterministic, nothing emergent, anything like that is happening.
I mean, our computers are completely deterministic, are they not?
I don’t think that they are. I think if they were completely deterministic, then enough brains put together could figure out a multi-tiered neural net, and I don’t think there’s any evidence that we can right now.
Well, that’s exciting.  
I’m not saying that it’s coming up with brilliant new ideas… But a system that’s so sophisticated that it defeats Go, and teaches grandmasters new ideas about Go—which is what the grandmaster who it defeated three out of four times said—[he] said, “I have new insights about this game,” that nobody could explain what it was doing, but it was thinking creatively in a way that we don’t understand.
Go is not like chess. On a chess board, I don’t know how many possible positions there are, but it’s calculable. On a Go board, it’s incalculable. There are more—I’ve heard it said, and I don’t really understand it very well—I heard it said there are more possible positions on a Go board than there are atoms in the universe.
So when it’s beating Go masters… Therefore, playing the game requires a great deal of intuition. It’s not just pattern-matching. Like, I’ve played a million games of Go—and that’s sort of what chess is [pattern-matching].
You know, the grandmasters are people who have seen every board you could possibly come up with. They’ve probably seen it before, and they know what to do. Go’s not like that. It requires a lot more undefinable intuition.
And so we’re moving rapidly into that territory. The program that beat the Go masters is called AlphaGo. It comes out of DeepMind. DeepMind was bought four years ago by Google. Going deep into reinforcement learning and artificial neural nets, I think your argument would be apt if we were talking about some of the old languages—Fortran, Basic, Pascal—where you could look at every line of code and figure out what was going on.
That’s no longer possible, and you’ve got Go grandmasters saying “I learned new insights.” So we’re in a brave new world here.
So you had a great part of the book, where you do a really smart kind of roll-up of when we may have an AGI. Where you went into different ideas behind it. And the question I’m really curious about is this: On the one hand, you have Elon Musk saying we can have it much sooner than you think. You have Stephen Hawking, who you quoted. You have Bill Gates saying he’s worried about it.
So you have all of these people who say it’s soon, it’s real, and it’s potentially scary. We need to watch what we do. Then on the other camp, you have people who are equally immersed in the technology, equally smart, equally, equally, equally all these other things… like Andrew Ng, who up until recently headed up AI at Baidu, who says worrying about AGI is like worrying about overpopulation on Mars. You have other people saying the soonest it could possibly happen is five hundred years from now.
So I’m curious about this. Why do you think, among these big brains, super smart people, why do they have… What is it that they believe or know or think, or whatever, that gives them such radically different views about this technology? How do you get your head around why they differ?
Excellent question. I first heard that Mars analogy from, I think it was Sebastian Thrun, who said we don’t know how to get to Mars. We don’t know how to live on Mars. But we know how to get a rocket to the moon, and gradually and slowly, little by little—No, it was Peter Norvig, who wrote the sort of standard text on artificial intelligence, called AI: A Modern Approach.
He said, you know, “We can’t live on Mars yet, but we’re putting the rockets together. Some companies are putting in some money. We’re eventually going to get to Mars, and there’ll be people living on Mars, and then people will be setting another horizon.” We haven’t left our solar system yet.
It’s a very interesting question, and very timely, about when will we achieve human-level intelligence in a machine, if ever. I did a poll about it. It was kind of a biased poll; it was of people who were at a conference about AGI, about artificial general intelligence. And then I’ve seen a lot of polls, and there’s two points to this.
One is the polls go all over the place. Some people said… Ray Kurzweil says 2029. Ray Kurzweil’s been very good at anticipating the progress of technology, he says 2029. Ray Kurzweil’s working for Google right now—this is parenthetically—he said he wants to create a machine that makes three hundred trillion calculations per second, and to share that with a billion people online. So what’s that? That’s basically reverse engineering of a brain.
Making three hundred trillion calculations per second, which is sort of a rough estimate of what a brain does. And then sharing it with a billion people online, which is making superintelligence a service, which would be incredibly useful. You could do pharmacological research. You could do really advanced weather modeling, and climate modeling. You could do weapons research, you could develop incredible weapons. He says 2029.
Some people said one hundred years from now. The mean date that I got was about 2045 for human-level intelligence in a machine. And then my book, Our Final Invention, got reviewed by Gary Marcus in the New Yorker, and he said something that stuck with me. He said whether or not it’s ten years or one hundred years, the more important question is: What happens next?
Will it be integrated into our lives? Or will it suddenly appear? How are we positioned for our own safety and security when it appears, whether it’s in fifty years or one hundred? So I think about it as… Nobody thought Go was going to be beaten for another ten years.
And here’s another way… So those are the two ways to think about it: one is, there’s a lot of guesses; and two, does it really matter what happens next? But the third part of that is this, and I write about it in Our Final Invention: If we don’t achieve it in one hundred years, do you think we’re just going to stop? Or do you think we’re going to keep beating at this problem until we solve it?
And as I said before, I don’t think we’re going to create exactly human-like intelligence in a machine. I think we’re going to create something extremely smart and extremely useful, to some extent, but something we, in a very deep way, don’t understand. So I don’t think it’ll be like human intelligence… it will be like an alien intelligence.
So that’s kind of where I am on that. I think it could happen in a variety of timelines. It doesn’t really matter when, and we’re not going to stop until we get there. So ultimately, we’re going to be confronted with machines that are a thousand or a million times more intelligent than we are.
And what are we going to do?
Well, I guess the underlying assumption is… it speaks to the credibility of the forecast, right? Like, if there’s a lab, and they’re working on inventing the lightbulb, like: “We’re trying to build the incandescent light bulb.” And you go in there and you say, “When will you have the incandescent light bulb?” and they say “Three or four weeks, five weeks. Five weeks tops, we’re going to have it.”  
Or if they say, “Uh, a hundred years. It may be five hundred, I don’t know.” I mean in those things you take a completely different view of, do we understand the problem? Do we know what we’re building? Do we know how to build an AGI? Do we even have a clue?
Do you believe… or here, let me ask it this way: Do you think an AGI is just an evolutionary… Like, we have AlphaGo, we have Watson, and we’re making them better every day. And eventually, that kind of becomes—gradually—this AGI. Or do you think there’s some “A-ha” thing we don’t know how to do, and at some point we’re like “Oh, here’s how you do it! And this is how you get a synapse to work.”
So, do you think we are nineteen revolutionary breakthroughs away, or “No, no, no, we’re on the path. We’re going to be there in three to five years.”?
Ben Goertzel, who is definitely in the race to make AGI—I interviewed him in my book—said we need some sort of breakthrough. And then we got to artificial neural nets and deep learning, and deep learning combined with reinforcement learning, which is an older technique, and that was kind of a breakthrough. And then people started to beat—IBM’s Deep Blue—to beat chess, it really was just looking up tables of positions.
But to beat Go, as we’ve discussed, was something different.
I think we’ve just had a big breakthrough. I don’t know how many revolutions we are away from a breakthrough that makes intelligence general. But let me give you this… the way I think about it.
There’s long been talk in the AI community about an algorithm… I don’t know exactly what they call it. But it’s basically an open-domain problem-solver that asks something simple like, what’s the next best move? What’s the next best thing to do? Best being based on some goals that you’ve got. What’s the next best thing to do?
Well, that’s sort of how DeepMind took on all the Atari games. They could drop the algorithm into a game, and it didn’t even know the rules. It just noticed when it was scoring or not scoring, and so it was figuring out what’s the next best thing to do.
Well if you can drop it into every Atari game, and then you drop it into something that’s many orders of magnitude above it, like Go, then why are we so far from dropping that into a robot and setting it out into the environment, and having it learn the environment and learn common sense about the environment—like, “Things go under, and things go over; and I can’t jump into the tree; I can climb the tree.”
It seems to me that general intelligence might be as simple as a program that says “What’s the next best thing to do?” And then it learns the environment, and then it solves problems in the environment.
So some people are going about that by training algorithms, artificial neural net systems and defeating games. Some people are really trying to reverse-engineer a brain, one neuron at a time. That’s sort of, in a nutshell—to vastly overgeneralize—that’s called the bottom-up, and the top-down approach for creating AGI.
So are we a certain number of revolutions away, or are we going to be surprised? I’m surprised a little too frequently for my own comfort about how fast things are moving. Faster than when I was writing the book. I’m wondering what the next milestone is. I think the Turing Test has not been achieved, or even close. I think that’s a good milestone.
It wouldn’t surprise me if IBM, which is great at issuing itself grand challenges and then beating them… But what’s great about IBM is, they’re upfront. They take on a big challenge… You know, they were beaten—Deep Blue was beaten several times before it won. When they took on Jeopardy, they weren’t sure they were going to win, but they had the chutzpah to get out there and say, “We’re gonna try.” And then they won.
I bet IBM will say, “You know what, in 2020, we’re going to take on the Turing Test. And we’re going to have a machine that you can’t tell that it’s a machine. You can’t tell the difference between a machine and a human.”
So, I’m surprised all the time. I don’t know how far or how close we are, but I’d say I come at it from a position of caution. So I would say, the window in which we have to create safe AI is closing.
Yes, no… I’m with you; I was just taking that in. I’ll insert some ominous “Dun, dun, dun…” Take that a little further.
Everybody has a role to play in this conversation, and mine happens to be canary in a coal mine. Despite the title of my book, I really like AI. I like its potential. Medical potential. I don’t like its war potential… If we see autonomous battlefield robots on the battlefield, you know what’s going to happen. Like every other piece of used military equipment, it’s going to come home.
Well, the thing is, about the military… and the thing about technology is…If you told my dad that he would invite into his home a representative of Google, and that representative would sit in a chair in a corner of the house, and he would take down everything we said, and would sell that data to our insurance company, so our insurance rates might go up… and it would sell that data to mortgage bankers, so they might cut off our ability to get a mortgage… because dad talks about going bankrupt, or dad talks about his heart condition… and he can’t get insurance anymore.
But if we hire a corporate guy, and we pay for it, and put him in our living room… Well, that’s exactly what we’re doing with Amazon Echo, with all the digital assistants. All this data is being gathered all the time, and it’s being sold… Buying and selling data is a four billion dollar-a-year industry. So we’re doing really foolish things with this technology. Things that are bad for our own interests.
So let me ask you an open-ended question… prognostication over shorter time frames is always easier. Tell me what you think is in store for the world, I don’t know, between now and 2030, the next thirteen years. Talk to me about unemployment, talk to me about economics, all of that. Tell me the next thirteen years.
Well, brace yourself for some futurism, which is a giant gamble and often wrong. To paraphrase Kevin Kelly again, everything that’s electrical will be cognitized. Our economy will be dramatically shaped by the ubiquity of artificial intelligence. With the Internet of Things, with the intelligence of everything around us—our phones, our cars…
I can already talk to my car. I’m inside my car, I can ask for directions, I can do some other basic stuff. That’s just going to get smarter, until my car drives itself. A lot of people… MIT did a study, that was quoting a Cambridge study, that said: “Forty-five percent of our jobs will be able to be replaced within twenty years.” I think they downgraded that to like ten years.
Not that they will be replaced, but they will be able to be replaced. But when AI is a twenty-five trillion dollar—when it’s worth twenty-five trillion dollars in 2025—everybody will be able to do anything, will be able to replace any employee that’s doing anything that’s remotely repetitive, and this includes doctors and lawyers… We’ll be able to replace them with the AI.
And this cuts deep into the middle class. This isn’t just people working in factories or driving cars. This is all accountants, this is a lot of the doctors, this is a lot of the lawyers. So we’re going to see giant dislocation, or giant disruption, in the economy. And giant money being made by fewer and fewer people.
And the trouble with that is, that we’ve got to figure out a way to keep a huge part of our population from starving, from not making a wage. People have proposed a basic minimum income, but to do that we would need tax revenue. And the big companies, Amazon, Google, Facebook, they pay taxes in places like Ireland, where there’s very low corporate tax. They don’t pay taxes where they get their wealth. So they don’t contribute to your roads.
Google is not contributing to your road system. Amazon is not contributing to your water supply, or to making your country safe. So there’s a giant inequity there. So we have to confront that inequity and, unfortunately, that is going to require political solutions, and our politicians are about the most technologically-backward people in our culture.
So, what I see is, a lot of unemployment. I see a lot of nifty things coming out of AI, and I am willing to be surprised by job creation in AI, and robotics, and automation. And I’d like to be surprised by that. But the general trend is… When you replace the biggest contract manufacturer in the world… Foxconn just replaced thirty-thousand people in Asia with thirty-thousand robots.
And all those people can’t be retrained, because if you’re doing something that’s that repetitive, and that mechanical… what can you be retrained to do? Well, maybe one out of every hundred could be a floor manager in a robot factory, but what about all the others? Disruption is going to come from all the people that don’t have jobs, and there’s nothing to be retrained to.
Because our robots are made in factories where robots make the robots. Our cars are made in factories where robots make the cars.
Isn’t that the same argument they used during the Industrial Revolution, when they said, “You got ninety percent of people out there who are farmers, and we’re going to lose all these farm jobs… And you don’t expect those farmers are going to, like, come work in a factory, where they have to learn completely new things.”
Well, what really happened in the different technology revolutions, back from the cotton gin onward is, a small sector… The Industrial Revolution didn’t suddenly put farms out of business. A hundred years ago, ninety percent of people worked on farms, now it’s ten percent.
But what happened with the Industrial Revolution is, sector by sector, it took away jobs, but then those people could retrain, and could go to other sectors, because there were still giant sectors that weren’t replaced by industrialization. There was still a lot of manual labor to do. And some of them could be trained upwards, into management and other things.
This, as the author Ford wrote in The Rise of Robots—and there’s also a great book called The Fourth Industrial Age. As they both argue, what’s different about this revolution is that AI works in every industry. So it’s not like the old revolutions, where one sector was replaced at a time, and there was time to absorb that change, time to reabsorb those workers and retrain them in some fashion.
But everybody is going to be… My point is, all sectors of the economy are going to be hit at once. The ubiquity of AI is going to impact a lot of the economy, all at the same time, and there is going to be a giant dislocation all at the same time. And it’s very unclear, unlike in the old days, how those people can be retrained and retargeted for jobs. So, I think it’s very different from other Industrial Revolutions, or rather technology revolutions.
Other than the adoption of coal—it went from generating five percent to eighty percent of all of our power in twenty years—the electrification of industry happened incredibly fast. Mechanization, replacement of animal power with mechanical power, happened incredibly fast. And yet, unemployment remains between four and nine percent in this country.
Other than the Depression, without ever even hiccupping—like, no matter what disruption, no matter what speed you threw at it—the economy never couldn’t just use that technology to create more jobs. And isn’t that maybe a lack of imagination that says “Well, no, now we’re out. And no more jobs to create. Or not ones that these people who’ve been displaced can do.”
I mean, isn’t that what people would’ve said for two hundred years?
Yes, that’s a somewhat persuasive argument. I think you’ve got a point that the economy was able to absorb those jobs, and the unemployment remained steady. I do think this is different. I think it’s a kind of a puzzle, and we’ll have to see what happens. But I can’t imagine… Where do professional drivers… they’re not unskilled, but they’re right next to it. And it’s the job of choice for people who don’t have a lot of education.
What do you retrain professional drivers to do once their jobs are taken? It’s not going to be factory work, it’s not going to be simple accounting. It’s not going to be anything repetitive, because that’s going to be the job of automation and AI.
So I anticipate problems, but I’d love to be pleasantly surprised. If it worked like the old days, then all those people that were cut off the farm would go to work in the factories, and make Ford automobiles, and make enough money to buy one. I don’t see all those driverless people going off to factories to make cars, or to manufacture anything.
A case in point of what’s happening is… Rethink Robotics, which is Rodney Brooks’ company, just built something called Baxter; and now Baxter is a generation old, and I can’t think of what replaced it. But it costs about twenty-two thousand dollars to get one of these robots. These robots cost basically what a minimum wage worker makes in a year. But they work 24/7, so they really replace three shifts, so they really are replacing three people.
Where do those people go? Do they go to shops that make Baxter? Or maybe you’re right, maybe it’s a failure of imagination to not be able to anticipate the jobs that would be created by Baxter and by autonomous cars. Right now, it’s failing a lot of people’s imagination. And there are not ready answers.
I mean, if it were 1995 and the Internet was, you’re just hearing about it, just getting online, just hearing it… And somebody said, “You know what? There’s going to be a lot of companies that just come out and make hundreds of billions of dollars, one after the other, all because we’ve learned how to connect computers and use this hypertext protocol to communicate.” I mean, that would not have seemed like a reasonable surmise.
No, and that’s a great example. If you were told that trillions of dollars of value are going to come out of this invention, who would’ve thought? And maybe I personally, just can’t imagine the next wave that is going to create that much value. I can see how AI and automation will create a lot of value, I only see it going into a few pockets though. I don’t see it being distributed in any way that the Silicon Valley startups, at least initially, were.
So let’s talk about you for a moment. Your background is in documentary filmmaking. Do you see yourself returning to that world? What are you working on, another book? What kind of thing is keeping you busy by day right now?
Well, I like making documentary films. I just had one on PBS last year… If you Google “Spillover” and “PBS” you can see it is streaming online. It was about spillover diseases—Ebola, Zika and others—and it was about the Ebola crisis, and how viruses spread. And then now I’m working on a film about paleontology, about a recent discovery that’s kind of secret, that I can’t talk about… from sixty-six million years ago.
And I am starting to work on another book that I can’t talk about. So I am keeping an eye on AI, because this issue is… Despite everything I talk about, I really like the technology; I think it’s pretty amazing.
Well, let’s close with, give me a scenario that you think is plausible, that things work out. That we have something that looks like full employment, and…
Good, Byron. That’s a great way to go out. I see people getting individually educated about the promise and peril of AI, so that we as a culture are ready for the revolution that’s coming. And that forces businesses to be responsible, and politicians to be savvy, about developments in artificial intelligence. Then they invest some money to make artificial intelligence advancement transparent and safe.
And therefore, when we get to machines that are as smart as humans, that [they] are actually our allies, and never our competitors. And that somehow on top of this giant wedding cake I’m imagining, we also manage to keep full employment, or nearly-full employment. Because we’re aware, and because we’re working all the time to make sure that the future is kind to humans.
Alright, well, that is a great place to leave it. I am going to thank you very much.
Well, thank you. Great questions. I really enjoyed the back-and-forth.
Byron explores issues around artificial intelligence and conscious computers in his upcoming book The Fourth Age, to be published in April by Atria, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. Pre-order a copy here. 
Voices in AI
Visit VoicesInAI.com to access the podcast, or subscribe now:
iTunes
Play
Stitcher
RSS
.voice-in-ai-link-back-embed { font-size: 1.4rem; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/cropped-voices-background.jpg) black; background-position: center; background-size: cover; color: white; padding: 1rem 1.5rem; font-weight: 200; text-transform: uppercase; margin-bottom: 1.5rem; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed:last-of-type { margin-bottom: 0; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { margin-top: .25rem; display: block; background: url(https://voicesinai.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/voices-in-ai-logo-light-768x264.png) center left no-repeat; background-size: contain; width: 100%; padding-bottom: 30%; text-indent: -9999rem; margin-bottom: 1.5rem } @media (min-width: 960px) { .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed .logo { width: 262px; height: 90px; float: left; margin-right: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 0; padding-bottom: 0; } } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed a:visited { color: #FF6B00; } .voice-in-ai-link-back a:hover { color: #ff4f00; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links { margin-left: 0 !important; margin-right: 0 !important; margin-bottom: 0.25rem; } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:link, .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:visited { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.77); } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links a:hover { background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.63); } .voice-in-ai-link-back-embed ul.go-alexa-briefing-subscribe-links .stitcher .stitcher-logo { display: inline; width: auto; fill: currentColor; height: 1em; margin-bottom: -.15em; } from Gigaom https://gigaom.com/2017/10/30/voices-in-ai-episode-17-a-conversation-with-james-barrat/
0 notes