Imperialismo Computacional. Recopilación de enlaces, julio de 2015.

En ésta edición, los 10 puntos habituales y un bonus que acabo de encontrar posteriormente.

0. La frase de la edición.

“Pour l´honneur du logiciel de la machine”.

Professor Jacoger Zeilbelbi.

Éste profesor puede ser considerado como epígono de los románticos y precursor de los imperialistas (computacionales).

1. LibroOn the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. Charles Babbage.

Sí de Babbage. In this eminently readable historical account, Charles Babbage surveys manufacturing practices including printing and publishing, and discusses the political, moral and economic factors affecting them. His scientific analysis and promotion of mechanisation and efficient ‘division of labour’ still resonate strongly for modern industrial engineering and manufacturing industries.

¿ Tendrá algún capítulo sobre economía de la supercomputación ?.

2. Privacidad. ¿ Que hacen con nuestros datos en Internet ?.

Algunos juzgarán que no pasa nada; para otros escalofriante.

3. La automatización en Facebook.

Escalofriante se mire por dónde se mire, pero tendencia irreversible a la que no queda más remedio que adaptarse.

4. Martin Wolf, sobre el  Imperialismo Computacional.

Es un destacado economista, periodista y consultor. Lamentamos no tener más tiempo para comentar en profundidad el artículo. Aunque por otra parte,  nada realmente nuevo: sólo queda claro que la mentalidad comunista (sin justificación teórica) está calando a todos los niveles.

Y lo peor es que esa mentalidad que a lo mejor tendrá  sentido en el futuro (quizás Marx tenía razón, a la larga) se está trasladando al presente. La actual política de EEUU con respecto a las patentes de software lo demuestra. De esta manera se hace imposible ese comunismo, quizás deseable en un futuro cuando la  fuente del conocimiento quede agotada.

Señores, que está en juego la mismísima Sociedad del Ocio. ¿ No nos estamos precipitando ? Paradojas del presente.

Notas.

–En cuanto a la cantidad de conocimiento científico que se pueda generar, soy finitista radical, no sólo por marginalimo, sino en términos esencialistas; con la salvedad de las Ciencias formales que por otra parte sólo pueden tener un número finito de teorías con aplicaciones interesantes, si éstas de dan en una cantidad finita; pero problemas matemáticos del tipo de pour l´Honneur de l´esprit humain  (gran libro el del mismo título por cierto) o recreativo, más o menos interesantes, que piquen la curiosidad, los habrá siempre.

–Diría que la contemporánea mentalidad anti-patentes no  existía antes. ¿ Cuando dejó EEUU de apreciar el talento pragmático ?. Es un fenómeno cuya genealogía es digna de historiar. No parece tener raíces, o no sólo, con la izquierda. Y parece fruto de una mala regulación: en EEUU no han sabido gestionar el problema que han supuesto determinadas patentes, sin verdadero contenido novedoso. Desarrollaré ésto en otra entrada.

Fin de nota.

Extractos.

Making robots replicate all the complex abilities of human beings has proved extremely difficult. Yes, robots can do well-defined human jobs in well-defined environments. Indeed, it is quite possible that standard factory work will be entirely automated. But the automation of such work is already very far advanced. It is not a revolution in the making. Yes, it is possible to imagine driverless cars. But this would be a far smaller advance than were cars themselves.

Beyond this, people imagine something far more profound than robots able to do gardening and the like: the “technological singularity,” when intelligent machines take off in a rapid cycle of self-improvement, leaving mere human beings behind. In this view, we will someday create machines with the abilities once ascribed to gods. Is that imminent? I have no idea.

Third, we will have to reconsider leisure. For a long time, the wealthiest lived a life of leisure at the expense of the toiling masses. The rise of intelligent machines would make it possible for many more people to live such lives without exploiting others. Today’s triumphant puritanism finds such idleness abhorrent. Well then, let people enjoy themselves busily. What else is the true goal of the vast increases in prosperity we have created?

Fourth, we may need to redistribute income and wealth on a large scale. Such redistribution could take the form of a basic income for every adult, together with funding for education and training at any stage in a person’s life. In this way, the potential for a more enjoyable life might become a reality. The revenue could come from taxes on bads (pollution, for example) or on rents (including land and, above all, intellectual property). Property rights are a social creation. The idea that a small minority should overwhelmingly benefit from new technologies should be reconsidered. It would be possible, for example, for the state to obtain an automatic share of the income from the intellectual property it protects.

The rise of truly intelligent machines, if it comes, would indeed be a big moment in history. It would change many things, including the global economy. Their potential is clear: they would, in principle, make it possible for human beings to live far better lives. Whether they end up doing so depends on how the gains are produced and distributed.

5. Robots Seem to Be Improving Productivity, Not Costing Jobs

El famoso debate del impacto de las nuevas tecnologías (en éste caso robótica) sobre la productividad.

¿ Cientos de millones de microdecisiones de agentes económicos como empresas y particulares equivocadas ? Sin duda algo se debe de estar contabilizando mal.

Extracto.

To fuel their analysis, Graetz and Michaels employ new data from theInternational Federation of Robotics to analyze the use of industrial robots across 14 industries in 17 countries between 1993 and 2007. What do they find? Overall, Graetz and Michaels conclude that the use of robots within manufacturing raised the annual growth of labor productivity and GDP by 0.36 and 0.37 percentage points, respectively, between 1993 and 2007. That might not seem like a lot but it represents 10% of total GDP growth in the countries studied and 16% of labor productivity growth over that time period.

El artículo original.

Título. Robots at Work.

Abstract.

Despite ubiquitous discussions of robots’ potential impact, there is almost no systematic empirical evidence on their economic effects. In this paper we analyze for the first time the economic impact of industrial robots, using new data on a panel of industries in 17 countries from 1993-2007. We find that industrial robots increased both labor productivity and value added. Our panel identification is robust to numerous controls, and we find similar results instrumenting increased robot use with a measure of workers’ replaceability by robots, which is based on the tasks prevalent in industries before robots were widely employed. We calculate that the increased use of robots raised countries’ average growth rates by about 0.37 percentage points. We also find that robots increased both wages and total factor productivity. While robots had no significant effect on total hours worked, there is some evidence that they reduced the hours of both low-skilled and middle-skilled workers.

Relacionado.  The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War. Robert Gordon.

Es el autor sobre el que hemos hablado en varias ocasiones en el pasado.  Lanzó la idea (basándose en datos) que las TIC no habían aportado demasiado en términos de productividad.

6. La historia de los cajeros automáticos.

7. El valor de las patentes para la riqueza

Título. Innovation and Top Income Inequality

Abstract. In this paper we use cross-state panel data to show a positive and significant correlation between various measures of innovativeness and top income inequality in the United States over the past decades. Two distinct instrumentation strategies suggest that this correlation (partly) reflects a causality from innovativeness to top income inequality, and the effect is significant: for example, when measured by the number of patent per capita, innovativeness accounts on average across US states for around 17% of the total increase in the top 1% income share between 1975 and 2010. Yet, innovation does not appear to increase other measures of inequality which do not focus on top incomes. Next, we show that the positive effects of innovation on the top 1% income share are dampened in states with higher lobbying intensity.

8. Los robots de Foxcom.

La versión lúdica de la robótica. Para mi la menos interesante.

9. Internet / Web.

–Sobre blogs, EBE.

¡¡ A ver si alguien propone una encuesta sobre estadísticas como es debido !!.

–Sobre redes sociales: cuando es mejor publicar en redes sociales (para maximizar visitas).

–Sobre Big DataThe Rise of Statistical Thinking, 1820-1900.

10. La relación entre las neuronas artificiales y las naturales.

Terms and conditions: 1. Any commenter of this blog agrees to transfer the copy right of his comments to the blogger. 2. RSS readers and / or aggregators that captures the content of this blog (posts or comments) are forbidden. These actions will be subject to the DMCA notice-and-takedown rules and will be legally pursued by the proprietor of the blog.

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s


A %d blogueros les gusta esto: