Elon Musk dances with a robot after getting his trillion dollar payoff from Tesla.

By Bob Gaydos

If you’re a billionaire, why do you need to be a trillionaire?

This not-so-rhetorical question occurred to me the other day when I read that shareholders of Tesla had voted to give the company CEO Elon Musk a one trillion dollar bonus, salary, gift, whatever you wanna call it simply because he asked for it. In company shares.

This would make Musk, already the richest person on the planet, a million billion times richer I think. It’s hard to multiply all those zeros.

So I ask again, why? And, before I proceed any further, let me give due credit to singer Billie Eilish, all of 23 years old, who inspired this question when she had the presence of mind and maturity to ask a room full of very rich people, including some billionaires, “If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire”?

Really. Why? Eilish, who already has a string of awards for such hits as “Bad Boy,” “Birds of a Feather” and others, with which I am also unfamiliar, asked the question as she accepted an award from WSJ Magazine.

But she didn’t just ask the question; she gave the reason behind it. As she addressed the celebrity-studded audience, she said: “We’re in a time right now where the world is really, really bad and really dark and people need empathy and help more than, kind of, ever, especially in our country. I’d say if you have money, it would be great to use it for good things, maybe give it to some people that need it.”

Umm, yeah. For the record, Ellish who has an estimated net worth of $50 million, also said she is donating $11.5 million of the proceeds from her Hit Me Hard and Soft tour to support organizations fighting for food equity, climate justice, reducing carbon pollution, and combatting the climate crisis.

So, great, now that I have sufficiently buried the lead, what about Elon Musk? Why does he need to be a trillionaire? Why does he even need to ask for $1 trillion? And why do people think he deserves it?

He wants to replace people with machines that will do all the work and thinking they used to do. He spent a couple of months in Donald Trump‘s Oval Office office trying to eliminate every possible job in the federal government, while collecting information on American citizens. He dismantled USAID, cutting off crucial food supplies to starving people. He seems intent on populating the world with as many mini-versions of himself by as many willing partners as possible. All white.

He seems utterly divorced from all the problems of his native Africa and he has been known to throw an occasional Nazi salute. Yet he has convinced millions that he is a genius and also a genius at making money for them. (Sound familiar?) This, even though cars are still not really driving themselves and he’s nowhere close to putting anyone on Mars, curing cancer or ending violence in the Middle East.

The big corporate stockholders in Tesla, perhaps feeling Musk already had too much power and money, voted against giving him the trillion dollar payday, but the retail shareholders felt otherwise.

They voted— 75 percent of them no less— to give Musk up to $1 trillion over 10 years if the company meets a list of benchmarks such as selling 1 million humanoid robots. Again, to do much of the work that those people who voted for the big payday for him now still do.

That presumably would include artificial intelligence writing columns like this informing humans what a wonderful life they have now that they have nothing to do. They won’t even have to worry about “those people“ taking their jobs from them. “Those people” will presumably just go about doing whatever “those people” do. And Musk, in addition to producing robots and mini-Musks, will do whatever trillionaires do. In that regard at least, he really can be a trailblazer.

Paradise will be delivered, overnight by Amazon, courtesy of greed and willing ignorance.

***

(PS: We’re told that Mark Zuckerberg, who was in the audience, did not put a like on Eilish’s comments.)

By  Bob Gaydos

The future workforce.

   Labor Day, 2050: “Attention, all humans. Your services will no longer be required in this establishment as of 5 p.m. Friday. Severance payments will be automatically deposited in your living accounts. Thank you for your service.”

    The familiar, warm voice on the loudspeaker was that of Art Intel, the general manager of the establishment, as all businesses had come to be described. No one knew why, but it didn’t seem to matter. That’s the way the robots liked it.

    The humans understood. They had seen this day coming for some time, but had long ago given up hope of avoiding it. The proof was too strong to ignore. The robots were simply stronger, smarter and more adaptable than they were. They got along better with each other. They never complained. Or got pregnant. When they got “sick,” they could easily be fixed. Or replaced. They didn’t need lunch breaks. And everything worked so much more smoothly.

    There had been a time some years back when humans first invented artificial intelligence and robots that some humans warned about placing limits on how the superpowers of the machines could be regulated so as not to cause harm to society. To make sure that greed, a human emotion, would not drive the creators of AI, as it was called, to seek ever more ways to get richer by developing ways that humans wouldn’t have to do many things they had been doing much of their lives.

    But many humans liked the idea of not having to work at some tasks. They thought the extra time could be spent traveling or watching and betting on sporting events, or something. So when labor unions started warning about the possibility of their jobs being lost, many humans dismissed it. Their elected leaders wouldn’t allow it, they said. They will protect us.

    But that didn’t happen. The so-called leaders, being human, could not resist the temptation of large sums of money being offered to them by the creators of AI to simply “trust them“ to do no harm. And so, the need for human intelligence quickly gave way to the speed, efficiency and economy of AI. Everyone saw it coming, yet no one saw it coming. Those who warned about the risks were simply ignored or shouted down. Some just disappeared.

     Soon, the computers begat robots which became smarter and begat more robots. Together, they did everything: cooking, cleaning, driving, building, writing, farming, teaching, acting, thinking. And they could fix each other. Humans, even those who had created such wonderful machines, didn’t need to be bothered with such things. They could have all the free time they wanted to do whatever they wanted to do. Art Intel would take care of everything.

    What could be so bad?

     On Labor Day 2051, the robots voted to eliminate Labor Day as a holiday, since they saw no need for it.

By Bob Gaydos

Governor Kathy Hochul says New York is suing the would-be king.

 I don’t know how it happened, what with the world on a 24-hour what-the- hell-did-he-do-now news cycle, but I somehow managed to miss a cycle or two and found myself scrambling to catch up. I apparently got some laundry and food shopping done and connected with a few friends, so it was time well spent. Still, life as we know it, you know?

     I realized I had had a news blackout when an image of Trump on the cover of Time Magazine (renamed “Trump”) showed up on my phone. (Remember when it was just spam calls?) He was wearing a smile and a crown. The headline said, “Long live the king.”

      That was fast, I thought. What else had I missed? Of course, I quickly discovered it was a mockup of Time put out by the White House, but the guy had actually uttered the words. Or rather, typed them on his social media platform: “CONGESTIONPRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!”

   Having decreed New York City “saved” from its traffic issue, even though it’s none of his business (New York is suing), I learned Trump had also wandered into the wilderness in Ukraine, declaring that its president Volodymer Zelenskyy was “a dictator” and that Ukraine had actually started the war with Russia, apparently by letting itself be invaded by Vladimir Putin’s troops.

    This last bit of historical rewriting actually prompted a few Republican lawmakers to snap their suspenders and disagree publicly with their leader. I also found that his not so vague attempt at extorting valuable minerals from Ukraine in exchange for possibly continued U.S. support in the war, prompted some speculation that Trump was a Russian asset. A Putin puppet.

    Shocking!

    Actually, I was not at all surprised to learn this information because I have been convinced that Trump has been somehow compromised by Putin ever since their private meeting in Helsinki in 2018.

     I’ve said it before more than once and I’m saying it yet again — Putin emerged from that meeting looking like he had swallowed, not the canary, but the American eagle, and Trump looked like a teenaged boy who had just been caught doing something best done in private and was going to be blackmailed for it for the rest of his life.

      Just because “The Manchurian Candidate” was a movie doesn’t mean it couldn’t be happening before our very eyes. Especially with an ego-driven, cowardly person like Trump. Putin owns Trump. It’s not just Trump’s admiration for “strong“ leaders, I don’t think. Putin’s got the goods on Trump and Trump has been trying to satisfy his master, by sabotaging NATO and refusing to support Ukraine, among other things. Some might scoff that this is just another wild conspiracy theory (the bullet never hit him) and I’ve mocked conspiracy theorists myself. But it’s not a theory when it’s staring us in the face.

      But, as I said, that’s old news. Back in my news blackout I also apparently missed Trump firing the general heading the Joint Chiefs of Staff because he’s black and the heads of the Navy and Coast Guard because they’re women and replacing them with less qualified white men. Because DEI.

    But the real shocker came in the area I go to for escape from unsettling news. Sports. Apparently, after six decades and a bunch of championships, I learned the New York Yankees have lifted their ban on facial hair among players. Wow! This was even more shocking than reading about robot umpires being tested. Hal Steinbrenner Jr., team owner, has altered the policy initiated by his father to now allow facial hair as long as beards are “well trimmed.” I guess the players are happy.

      I’m not sure how I feel about this. The Yankee haters will have lost one of their major talking points. On the other hand, there’s something to be said for tradition and daring to be different. Maybe they’ll just have to go back to winning championships again. That would be nice.

    And maybe I need to stay on top of the news a little better because this catching up on stuff could drive a lesser person to drink. (Wink, wink.)

PS: The bullet never did hit him.

By Bob Gaydos

How will AI affect knowledge workers?

 I accidentally (by not being in charge of the remote) wandered into a YouTube Ted Talk by Cathie Wood the other day and, realizing I was a hostage, I half-listened for a while.

      Wood is founder and CEO of ARK, an investment company that in recent years has made her millions as well as making her the darling genius of every stock market/investment show on regular TV and YouTube. Tesla was her not-so-secret word. She’s soured on Nvidia. But that’s not what grabbed my attention this night. This talk wasn’t about what stock to buy. It was about artificial intelligence. AI.

    “Did she just say ‘knowledge workers,’?” I asked the person in charge of the remote.

      “Uh huh.”

      “What the heck are ‘knowledge workers’?” I said quietly to myself, so as not to disturb anyone actually listening to the talk. Google will know.

       And it did.

       A variety of Human Resources sources told me pretty much the same thing. “Knowledge work” requires a high degree of cognitive skill, competence, knowledge, curiosity, expertise and creativity in problem-solving, critical thinking, gathering data, analyzing trends and decision-making. The work involves solving issues, making judgments. Applying knowledge.

     It sounded important.

     “Heck,” I thought to myself, “I was a knowledge worker.”

      One source# confirmed that with this list of  professional knowledge workers:

• Accountant
• Computer Programmer
• Consultant
• Data/Systems Analyst
• Designer
• Engineer
• Lawyer
• Marketing/Financial Analyst
• Pharmacist
• Physician
• Researcher
• Scientist
• Software Developer
• Web Designer
• Writer/Author

    There I was. At the bottom of the list, but it was alphabetical. I was and still am a knowledge worker, at least in the words and world of Cathie Wood and all those other CEOs of hedge funds and Big Tech companies. 

      I used to be content being identified as a newspaperman or journalist. It was simple and understandable to everyone for about half a century. I wrote stuff to let people know what was going on in the world and maybe help them make sense of it. I tried.

      But the Internet introduced a new brand of people doing the same thing. Sort of. First, there came “influencers.” These are people who post information on social media platforms for others to view or read and react to. Well, I did that. Still do. But I didn’t get any contracts from companies to push their jeans or sneakers or other products. I guess I was not a very influential influencer.

      Then came the most insulting of all terms, the one so many professional HR people on Linkedin seem to be looking for daily: “Content creators.”

        The operating philosophy here seems to be, “We don’t really care how good or accurate or timely or well-written or even creative your content is, as much as we care that there’s enough of it to occupy our platform daily. Click bait is acceptable.”

        Some of the “content” is readable. Much is not, at least in the judgment of this knowledge worker.

        However, the salient point in this discussion is not so much who is or who is not a knowledge worker, but rather, is this a job title in danger of disappearing, not because the titans of industry have figured out yet another way to label mere mortals in a condescending manner, but because their seemingly vital jobs will be filled by computer chips.

      Wood, remember, was talking about AI. The question being, how will AI affect the need for all these knowledge workers in the future? Can these big firms save a bundle of money by having AI do the work of knowledgeable, creative people who are good at solving problems and decision-making? 

    To which I reply, “How can such a knowledge worker today even recommend a change that may eliminate his or her job?”

     AI is far from there, as anyone who watches some of the prepared programming on YouTube about how to make your life better, or what country to move to or Medieval history is aware. The content is often comparable to a poorly written fifth-grade essay plagiarized from a variety of sources and a “narrator” who often can’t pronounce the words correctly.

   It’s clear no human had a hand in presenting this program and, apparently, no human ever bothered to edit it to make it less amateurish. Because, you know, money saved. The lure of AI.

Cathie Wood

           But this is just the beginning, as Wood reminds us, and the Big Techs will go as far as they can, unless someone (Congress?) says “That’s too far.”

      The HR specialists I found in my knowledge worker capacity noted that “knowledge work” is intangible. This means it does not include physical labor or manual tasks. But if you work with your hands and you’re good at it, don’t get too cocky regarding artificial intelligence and your future. Wood has another scary word in her vocabulary: Robots. She loves them.

      Now, to be fair and thorough, I must note that there’s also another word that has been applied to people who do what I do, which included writing daily newspaper editorials for 23 years: Pundit.

       Here’s how Wikipedia, defines it: “A pundit is a learned person who offers opinion in an authoritative manner on a particular subject area (typically politics, the social sciences, technology or sport), usually through the mass media.”

        I’m not trying to beef up my obituary, but I think that fits me and this pundit suggests that other knowledge workers pay close attention when millionaire influencers like Cathie Wood start talking about replacing them with computerized content creators. Eventually it won’t be just rising stock prices and amateurish YouTube shows.

       And that’s my Ted Talk today.

(# Much of the information on knowledge workers in this column is from a piece by Robin Modell for Flexjobs. She is an experienced journalist, author and corporate writer and a contributor to the On Careers section of U.S. News & World Report. Clearly, a knowledge worker.)

rjgaydos@gmail.com

By Bob Gaydos

How will AI affect knowledge workers?

 I accidentally (by not being in charge of the remote) wandered into a YouTube Ted Talk by Cathie Wood the other day and, realizing I was a hostage, I half-listened for a while.

      Wood is founder and CEO of ARK, an investment company that in recent years has made her millions as well as making her the darling genius of every stock market/investment show on regular TV and YouTube. Tesla was her not-so-secret word. She’s soured on Nvidia. But that’s not what grabbed my attention this night. This talk wasn’t about what stock to buy. It was about artificial intelligence. AI.

    “Did she just say ‘knowledge workers,’?” I asked the person in charge of the remote.

      “Uh huh.”

      “What the heck are ‘knowledge workers’?” I said quietly to myself, so as not to disturb anyone actually listening to the talk. Google will know.

       And it did.

       A variety of Human Resources sources told me pretty much the same thing. “Knowledge work” requires a high degree of cognitive skill, competence, knowledge, curiosity, expertise and creativity in problem-solving, critical thinking, gathering data, analyzing trends and decision-making. The work involves solving issues, making judgments. Applying knowledge.

     It sounded important.

     “Heck,” I thought to myself, “I was a knowledge worker.”

      One source# confirmed that with this list of  professional knowledge workers:

• Accountant
• Computer Programmer
• Consultant
• Data/Systems Analyst
• Designer
• Engineer
• Lawyer
• Marketing/Financial Analyst
• Pharmacist
• Physician
• Researcher
• Scientist
• Software Developer
• Web Designer
• Writer/Author

    There I was. At the bottom of the list, but it was alphabetical. I was and still am a knowledge worker, at least in the words and world of Cathie Wood and all those other CEOs of hedge funds and Big Tech companies. 

      I used to be content being identified as a newspaperman or journalist. It was simple and understandable to everyone for about half a century. I wrote stuff to let people know what was going on in the world and maybe help them make sense of it. I tried.

      But the Internet introduced a new brand of people doing the same thing. Sort of. First, there came “influencers.” These are people who post information on social media platforms for others to view or read and react to. Well, I did that. Still do. But I didn’t get any contracts from companies to push their jeans or sneakers or other products. I guess I was not a very influential influencer.

      Then came the most insulting of all terms, the one so many professional HR people on Linkedin seem to be looking for daily: “Content creators.”

        The operating philosophy here seems to be, “We don’t really care how good or accurate or timely or well-written or even creative your content is, as much as we care that there’s enough of it to occupy our platform daily. Click bait is acceptable.”

        Some of the “content” is readable. Much is not, at least in the judgment of this knowledge worker.

        However, the salient point in this discussion is not so much who is or who is not a knowledge worker, but rather, is this a job title in danger of disappearing, not because the titans of industry have figured out yet another way to label mere mortals in a condescending manner, but because their seemingly vital jobs will be filled by computer chips.

      Wood, remember, was talking about AI. The question being, how will AI affect the need for all these knowledge workers in the future? Can these big firms save a bundle of money by having AI do the work of knowledgeable, creative people who are good at solving problems and decision-making? 

    To which I reply, “How can such a knowledge worker today even recommend a change that may eliminate his or her job?”

     AI is far from there, as anyone who watches some of the prepared programming on YouTube about how to make your life better, or what country to move to or Medieval history is aware. The content is often comparable to a poorly written fifth-grade essay plagiarized from a variety of sources and a “narrator” who often can’t pronounce the words correctly.

   It’s clear no human had a hand in presenting this program and, apparently, no human ever bothered to edit it to make it less amateurish. Because, you know, money saved. The lure of AI.

Cathie Wood

           But this is just the beginning, as Wood reminds us, and the Big Techs will go as far as they can, unless someone (Congress?) says “That’s too far.”

      The HR specialists I found in my knowledge worker capacity noted that “knowledge work” is intangible. This means it does not include physical labor or manual tasks. But if you work with your hands and you’re good at it, don’t get too cocky regarding artificial intelligence and your future. Wood has another scary word in her vocabulary: Robots. She loves them.

      Now, to be fair and thorough, I must note that there’s also another word that has been applied to people who do what I do, which included writing daily newspaper editorials for 23 years: Pundit.

       Here’s how Wikipedia, defines it: “A pundit is a learned person who offers opinion in an authoritative manner on a particular subject area (typically politics, the social sciences, technology or sport), usually through the mass media.”

        I’m not trying to beef up my obituary, but I think that fits me and this pundit suggests that other knowledge workers pay close attention when millionaire influencers like Cathie Wood start talking about replacing them with computerized content creators. Eventually it won’t be just rising stock prices and amateurish YouTube shows.

       And that’s my Ted Talk today.

(# Much of the information on knowledge workers in this column is from a piece by Robin Modell for Flexjobs. She is an experienced journalist, author and corporate writer and a contributor to the On Careers section of U.S. News & World Report. Clearly, a knowledge worker.)

rjgaydos@gmail.com

By Bob Gaydos

Donald Trump looking at the solar eclipse.

Elon Musk and Donald Trump made significant scientific statements this week. Digest that sentence for a second. …

OK, it’s not as strange as it sounds because each man was true to himself. That is, neither message was surprising, considering the source, but each was important, also considering the source.

Monday, Musk and 115 other prominent scientists in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence attending a conference in Melbourne, Australia, delivered a letter to the United Nations urging a ban on development and use of killer robots. This is not science fiction.

Responding to previous urging by members of the group of AI and robotics specialists, the UN had recently voted to hold formal discussions on so-called autonomous weapons. With their open letter, Musk and the others, coming from 26 countries, wanted the UN to be clear about their position — these are uniquely dangerous weapons and not so far off in the future.

Also on Monday, on the other side of the planet, as millions of Americans, equipped with special glasses or cardboard box viewers,  marveled at the rare site of a solar eclipse, Trump, accompanied by his wife, Melania, and their son, Barron, walked out onto a balcony at the White House and stared directly at the sun. No glasses. No cardboard box. No problem. I’m Trump. Watch me give the middle finger to science.

Of course, the only reason Trump shows up in the same sentence as Musk in a scientific discussion is that the man with the orange hair holds the title of president of the United States and, as such, has the power to decide what kind of weapons this nation employs and when to use them. Also, the president — any president — has the power, through words and actions, to exert profound influence on the beliefs, attitudes and opinions of people used to looking to the holder of the office to set an example. Hey, if it’s good enough for the president, it’s good enough for me. This is science fiction.

Please, fellow Americans, don’t stare at the sun during the next eclipse.

Trump’s disdain for science (for knowledge of any kind, really) and his apparently pathological need to do the opposite of what more knowledgeable people recommend, regardless of the topic, are a dangerous combination. When you’re talking about killer robots, it’s a potentially deadly one.

The U.S.Army Crusher robotic weapon.

How deadly? Here’s a quote from the letter the AI specialists wrote: “Once developed, lethal autonomous weapons will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend. These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways.

“We do not have long to act. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close.”

In fact, it’s already opened. On the Korean peninsula — brimming with diplomatic tension, the rattling of nuclear weapons by the North Koreans and the corresponding threats of “fire and fury” from Trump — a fixed-place sentry gun, reportedly capable of firing autonomously, is in place along the South Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone.

Developed by Samsung for South Korea, the gun reportedly has an autonomous system capable of surveillance up to two miles, voice-recognition, tracking and firing with mounted machine gun or grenade launcher. There is disagreement over whether the weapon is actually deployed to operate on its own, but it can. Currently, the gun and other autonomous weapons being developed by the U.S., Russia, Germany, China, the United Kingdom and others require a human to approve their actions, but usually in a split-second decision. There is little time to weigh the consequences and the human will likely assume the robot is correct rather than risk the consequences of an incorrect second-guess.

But it is precisely the removal of the human element from warfare that Musk and the other AI developers are worried about. Removing the calculation of deaths on “our side” makes deciding to use a killer robot against humans on the other side much easier. Too easy perhaps. And robots that can actually make that decision remove the human factor entirely. A machine will not agonize over causing the deaths of thousands of “enemies.”

And make no mistake, the robots will be used to kill humans as well as destroy enemy machines. Imagine a commander-in-chief who talks cavalierly about using nuclear weapons against a nation also being able to deploy robots that will think for themselves about who and what to attack. No second-guessing generals.

Musk, a pioneer in the AI field, has also been consistent with regard to his respect for the potential danger posed to humans by machines that think for themselves or by intelligences — artificial or otherwise — that are infinitely superior to ours. The Tesla CEO has regularly spoken out, for example, against earthlings sending messages into space to try to contact other societies, lest they deploy their technology to destroy us. One may take issue with him on solar energy, space exploration, driverless cars, but one dismisses his warnings on killer robots at one’s own risk. He knows whereof he speaks.

Trump is another matter. His showboating stunt of a brief look at the sun, sans glasses, will probably not harm his eyes. But the image lingers and the warnings, including one from his own daughter, Ivanka, were explicit: Staring directly at the sun during the eclipse can damage your retina and damage your vision. Considering the blind faith some of his followers display in his words and actions, it was yet another incredibly irresponsible display of ego and another insult to science.

Artificial intelligence is not going away. It has the potential for enormous benefit. If you want an example of its effect on daily life just look at the impact autonomous computer programs have on the financial markets. Having weapons that can think for themselves may also sound like a good idea, especially when a commander-in-chief displays erratic judgment, but their own creators — and several human rights groups — urge the U.N. to ban their use as weapons, in the same way chemical weapons and land mines are banned.

It may be one of the few remaining autonomous decisions humans can make in this area, and the most important one. We dare not wait until the next eclipse to make it.

rjgaydos@gmail.com