In the future there will be those that own the machines and those that don't

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Precisely my point.

Old paradigms must and will die.

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

How can a company "manned" by robots make a profit unless people buy the goods and services? The logical conclusion of the progression of robot technology is that the vast majority of people will no longer work so where will the demand for the products come from if they are not earning a wage? Where will the money for welfare come from if there are not enough people paying taxes ? Capitalism cannot work in these circumstances, the model has to change.

They will. The error here is in the extremist viewpoint that robotics will replace ALL work. Every time someone brings up robotics there is an immediate leap to Complete and Utter Robotic Domination. There is no evidence that this will be the case. It's the same reaction some people had to industrialization. That's where the name "sabotage" came from because the Dutch threw their shoes, their sabots, into the weaving mechanisms that were "talking away jobs." Same reaction exactly.

The demise of the horse used for transportation decimated the blacksmith and buggy whip industry, but it created the profession of mechanic, a much more intellectually demanding profession--which speaks to one of my major points above. In a similar vein, robotics will not create a situation where there are no jobs. It's just that job requirements and positions will change. We may actually need fewer people in the labor force, but that's one of the issues humanity faces already--too many people. But that can change in a single generation.

To claim that capitalism cannot thrive in a world increasingly attuned to robotics is an extremist notion. Rather than lament the loss of drudge-like jobs most people don't like anyway, the proper response is to welcome the opportunity to create better ones where people can enjoy greater responsibility, flexibility, and creativity.

Would you rather flip burgers as a dead-end career, or understand precisely how robots work and are programmed? There's no reason to suppose you'll be out of a job unless you are too lazy and lack the motivation to teach yourself another one.

a reply to: schuyler

I agree with a lot of what you said. Capitalism can and will still exist in a society with massive amounts of automation. However, I don't think that form of capitalism will be the extreme "compete or die" crap we have right now.

In other words, I think widespread automation and robotics will/should: 1) Replace menial labor, which frees citizens up to do other things. And 2) first focus on providing all citizens with the bare necessities (which will be perks of being in that society). The basic food supply can be provided by this system, as would 3d printed public housing, the public transportation system, and much more. Even filling out most government forms for licenses and fines could be done at a computer screen or at kiosks.

However, this still wouldn't mean that individuals couldn't grow their own food or work towards private housing and forms of private transportation. And individuals could still form or join companies that specialize in other products. The difference is that everyone would have access to a specified "bare minimum" from the State (which is really just an upgrade of the system we already have). But more automation would allow that bare minimum to increase as the technology increased.

Another thing I find interesting is an aspect that many "conservatives" should be jumping all over: the potential reduction in bureaucracy and govt personnel costs. Imagine walking into one of the numerous government departments you need (like the VA, DMV, or county clerk's office). Then you walk up to a wall of ATM-like machines, enter your info, tap through a series of touchscreens for what you want, insert your payment type or some ofrm of required authorization, and see your account automatically updated. This type of system could be open around the clock, too. Obviously it wouldn't replace everyone, but the savings in both time & paperwork could be enormous. (note: this would also be greatly increased if new laws were passed that streamlined a lot of these applications and forms.)

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
In the future Maybe there will be machines that own humans and machines that don't??

Personally I believe that the machine is the next stage of evolution.

I believe that our job is to create the next phase where the body is no longer necessary and that our animal instincts are no longer a determining factor in our actions.

Sounds like you want to destroy humanity and turn us all into a 'Borg' type race like the one from Star Trek. You realize that in that dystopian future the Borg were the enemy not something you wanted to become? I for one will put up my resistance to that future and the horror it would bring as the very essence of humanity is destroyed.

Resistance is NOT futile.

a reply to: onequestion

Old paradigms must and will die.

Why?

Because you say so? Not everyone wants that bleak future.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: onequestion

Old paradigms must and will die.

Why?

Because you say so? Not everyone wants that bleak future.

Yet many of those same people constantly complain about our current situation. And others are undeniably being crushed by the current system. So should we all just sit around and complain about these advances? I think we should figure out how these advances can work for us, rather than against us. Because they're coming, no matter how much we ignore them, complain about them, or don't want them.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

With 7 billion people on the planet and only 300 million necessary to satisfy those needs should we just let the rest die or do we develop a more inclusive and advanced system?

That's really what it comes down too.

originally posted by: onequestion
I'm putting this in the global meltdown section because in my opinion these machines are being designed to replace us not aid us.

www.cnbc.com...

Humanlike robots may seem creepy, but some roboticists are betting they are the key to unlocking a future in which humans and superintelligent computers coexist, work alongside each other and even develop relationships.

Starting to get very Irobot like. Pretty soon I'm expecting Will Smoth to bust out of a fast moving car in front of me shooting lasers at zombies.

Oops that's an almagamation of different movies but not to far from the truth is it? Let's replace the zombies with poor people but keep the mix of the two plot lines. Anyway.....

So here's the clip from the link. You'll see a what could be seen as an attractive female robot talkin robotically.

I can't imagine the future of my life in the next twenty years as Googles deep mind technology is combined with this robot to complete ordinary tasks like mentioned in the article. Forget jobs in the future.

So when are we going to realize that capitalism is officially on its way out and that cultural evolution is on its way in? We must accept that the old paradigm is dead and move forward or die with it.

Sorry, I'm too old to see such a paradigm shift. What could possibly go wrong ? Putting our "nature " into a robot which is smarter than we are and stronger than we are and will desire to be self aware seems to be suicide for mankind . Before we create something in our own image that may attain A.I. , maybe we should work on ourselves first.

a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

It sounds a lotlikehell on earth huh.

a reply to: onequestion

What's a belspundd ??

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM
a reply to: onequestion

What's a belspundd ??

Kinda fixed.

originally posted by: onequestion

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM
a reply to: onequestion

What's a belspundd ??

Kinda fixed.

You fixed your error by editing, but I don't see any ideas to prevent robots from attaining A.I. If we are heading towards hell on earth, why not change course ? Is it our destiny to finally prove that we invented something that eventually destroys us ?

originally posted by: schuyler




The demise of the horse used for transportation decimated the blacksmith and buggy whip industry, but it created the profession of mechanic, a much more intellectually demanding profession--which speaks to one of my major points above. In a similar vein, robotics will not create a situation where there are no jobs. It's just that job requirements and positions will change. We may actually need fewer people in the labor force, but that's one of the issues humanity faces already--too many people. But that can change in a single generation.

There is a big difference in this analogy I see all the time with increased automation
There were millions of horses in the industrial age and the car put the horse out of work. Where are all the millions of horses at?

Since the Industrial Age, all technological improvements centered around providing the basics to humans such as food, clothing, housing, medical and so on.

Those can all be automated now unlike back in the Industrial Age so what do the elite need the human worker for?
Automation has gotten to a point now where the human worker is horse of the Industrial Age.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: enlightenedservant

With 7 billion people on the planet and only 300 million necessary to satisfy those needs should we just let the rest die or do we develop a more inclusive and advanced system?

That's really what it comes down too.

Actually, it doesn't have to be either of those choices. If people don't have to work to survive, that gives them the freedom to follow other paths.

A lot will choose to spend more time with their families and friends. Some will choose to dedicate more time to religion, philosophy, or other scholarly fields. Some will choose to explore their artist sides, travel the world, learn new martial arts or dance styles, learn new or ancient languages, etc. And others may stay online and meet people like that, stay in the wilderness, or just become lazy bums. Either way, why should that part matter? It's ironic that I'm the one pushing for people to have more personal and financial freedom here.

Of course, that also won't stop other people from starting organizations that focus on bigger things. Just imagine how advanced our space programs could be if a full 10 million citizens around the world could work on it? And not just go through the motions to pay their bills; imagine that many dedicated people who genuinely care about the possible advances & breakthrough. Or imagine the scientific breakthroughs if entire states or provinces prided themselves on doing nothing but creating new algorithms and alloys, or unlocking the secrets of DNA and particle physics. I can even imagine voluntary societies for people who want to document every inch of our ocean floors and the lifeforms they encounter.

The point is, "working to survive" is not the same thing as "working". There will always be people who do work for fun or because of dreams and personal goals. All this would do is take away the suffering element, where you may become homeless or your kids may starve if you don't go back to a dead end job. The possibilities are nearly limitless.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Then it will be time for social progress, such as we're witnessing now.

We are a long way off before we can invent a mechanism that is "sentient". Call it what you want, "Cognizant", "Self Aware"... not even close.

I think the big problem is education, as what we CAN do is mimic intelligence, and that will increase in complexity until it will be hard for people who do not understand the fundamental computer science aspects of mimic .vs. the real thing, and will actually assume that a mechanism is sentient, when it is really cleverly database driven and probabilistic/statistically programmed to deceive them. This is not AI, it is just an advanced game of ELIZA. AI is a concept only,

We will see this advanced mimicry long before anything is invented that can conjure up an original thought. We have absolutely no evidence that we can produce a self-aware machine, and no algorithm or circuitry has shown it to be remotely capable of accomplishing it. We cannot even figure out today how our brains accomplish it, and really cannot yet comprehend and categorize even the basic intelligence in a bacterium, let alone a person.

No friends, it is a long way off. Perhaps the breakthroughs can only happen once we understand what life really is, which also implies understanding what spirituality is... we have not a clue.

originally posted by: charlyv
We are a long way off before we can invent a mechanism that is "sentient". Call it what you want, "Cognizant", "Self Aware"... not even close.

I think the big problem is education, as what we CAN do is mimic intelligence, and that will increase in complexity until it will be hard for people who do not understand the fundamental computer science aspects of mimic .vs. the real thing, and will actually assume that a mechanism is sentient, when it is really cleverly database driven and probabilistic/statistically programmed to deceive them. This is not AI, it is just an advanced game of ELIZA. AI is a concept only,

We will see this advanced mimicry long before anything is invented that can conjure up an original thought. We have absolutely no evidence that we can produce a self-aware machine, and no algorithm or circuitry has shown it to be remotely capable of accomplishing it. We cannot even figure out today how our brains accomplish it, and really cannot yet comprehend and categorize even the basic intelligence in a bacterium, let alone a person.

No friends, it is a long way off. Perhaps the breakthroughs can only happen once we understand what life really is, which also implies understanding what spirituality is... we have not a clue.

I have a theory that it's going to manifest once the network is big enough and has enough data.

a reply to: onequestion

Interesting fact: US industrial employment has steadily accelerated for at least 50 years while employment in these areas have inversely declined - largely due to automation - and the trend will most likely continue.

Those factory jobs are gone people, and will never come back, no matter what your favorite politician will tell you. But it isn't just those jobs...

There are large data-processing AI programs that write most of the sports, stock market reports, and data driven articles for the “News” sections of Yahoo, Google, etc. right now. Not the best prose, but passable, and no one notices. Those jobs are gone people, and will never come back, so look out if you are thinking of breaking into journalism as “cub reporter,” and working your way up.

Many new law school grads are finding that there are no jobs left for them to break into their field as clerks who research precedence – AI does the searches now.

Many predict that within 20 years almost all blue collar and most white collar jobs will be fully automated.

For most the paradigm of today's world will not exist. So, either the world will be the 1% (of a fraction there of), with the rest groveling in abject poverty, or a new paradigm wil emerge. Some have suggested that when machine do all the work, most goods and services will be free. We will become a race of freeloaders....

Don't know either way. Guess we will have to figure it out.

Should be an interesting time....

a reply to: onequestion

The size of the network and database is the subjective part of the what would be necessary, however it is the objective part, the spontaneous, purposeful, asynchronous, autonomous unsolicited query, not only realizing that the data and pathways are there, but with the objective of contemplation and reasoning of the information obtained... An "Out of the Blue" occurrence.

Our minds do this all the time. Try and think of a way that a machine could generate (initiate) that process without being told or scheduled to do it.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: onequestion

The size of the network and database is the subjective part of the what would be necessary, however it is the objective part, the spontaneous, purposeful, asynchronous, autonomous unsolicited query, not only realizing that the data and pathways are there, but with the objective of contemplation and reasoning of the information obtained... An "Out of the Blue" occurrence.

Our minds do this all the time. Try and think of a way that a machine could generate that process without being told or scheduled to do it.

Yes exactly.

Look at how life creeps into all areas of the universe wherever it can fit. It manifest from nothing and that's exactly how AI is going to hit us too when we create the conditions for it to exist.