to the people who think capitalism can exist in an all robot workforce world

[rantanamo]

and that people are gonna suffer in famine because they will have no jobs
I have a question

who the fukk are the robot overlords gonna sell their products to?


can't y'all see the purity of this experiment?
can't y'all see how it reveals the true socialist nature of the "market" and the synthetic/disposable involvement of money or labor?

There's an easy answer to this. Robot overlords don't need to sell products. All they need is a power source and a purpose. You should be asking, who are the human owners going to sell their products to. The answer is other wealthy people. No different than the 99% of human history. The question is, will people willingly go back to a plebeian existence? And even if the majority wants to forcibly exist, will technology be such that its impossible to fight. We forget that humans have no problem enslaving other humans or even killing them off. You already have some people talking loosely like that today.

 

[tmonster]

There's an easy answer to this. Robot overlords don't need to sell products. All they need is a power source and a purpose. You should be asking, who are the human owners going to sell their products to. The answer is other wealthy people. No different than the 99% of human history. The question is, will people willingly go back to a plebeian existence? And even if the majority wants to forcibly exist, will technology be such that its impossible to fight. We forget that humans have no problem enslaving other humans or even killing them off. You already have some people talking loosely like that today.

 

[Insensitive]

We'd have to solve several engineering problems before "Robots"
could just up and replace the entire workforce.

The most advanced robot on the planet can only operate for an hour on
a rechargeable battery with a good chunk of processing done on a separate
special server.
Then you got dudes in here talking about Robots replacing engineers,
we don't even have AI that can pass the turing test, I mean..really

@ The sci fi fantasies up in here.

 

[Vandelay]

We'd have to solve several engineering problems before "Robots"
could just up and replace the entire workforce.

The most advanced robot on the planet can only operate for an hour on
a rechargeable battery with a



good chunk of processing done on a separate
special server.
Then you got dudes in here talking about Robots replacing engineers,
we don't even have AI that can pass the turing test I mean..really

@ The sci fantasies up in here.

Spoiler: O RLY

Computer AI passes Turing test in 'world first'


http://m.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088

 

[Richard Wright]

We'd have to solve several engineering problems before "Robots"
could just up and replace the entire workforce.

The most advanced robot on the planet can only operate for an hour on
a rechargeable battery with a good chunk of processing done on a separate
special server.
Then you got dudes in here talking about Robots replacing engineers,
we don't even have AI that can pass the turing test, I mean..really

@ The sci fantasies up in here.

These things will be expensive to make and to run for a long time. Electricity and power are already super expensive.

 

[Insensitive]

Spoiler: O RLY

Computer AI passes Turing test in 'world first'


http://m.bbc.com/news/technology-27762088

Try again :
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml

As someone who has a genuine interest in robotics and would like
a career in the field, I find a good chunk of this to be hilarious.

 

[tmonster]

We'd have to solve several engineering problems before "Robots"
could just up and replace the entire workforce.

The most advanced robot on the planet can only operate for an hour on
a rechargeable battery with a good chunk of processing done on a separate
special server.
Then you got dudes in here talking about Robots replacing engineers,
we don't even have AI that can pass the turing test, I mean..really

@ The sci fantasies up in here.

I don't get any of the basis of your pessimism
luckily, science doe not need any of us as cheerleaders
and has one hell of a track record

 

[Vandelay]

Try again :
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-first-time-everyone-should-know-better.shtml

As someone who has a genuine interest in robotics and would like
a career in the field, I find a good chunk of this to be hilarious.

1. The whole concept of the Turing Test itself is kind of a joke. While it's fun to think about, creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence. Many in the AI world look on the Turing Test as a needless distraction.

So why even bring up the Turing test as a way to validate.

I understand you have an appreciation and an interest, but I work in manufacturing and warehousing, in fact I'm standing in the middle of our warehouses overseeing a project as I type this ...I see automation replace jobs regularly.

I don't claim to know exactly what the future holds, but i know it will consist of humans doing little to no work. What that means for people....

 

[Insensitive]

I don't get any of the basis of your pessimism
luckily, science doe not need any of us as cheerleaders
and has one hell of a track record

The basis of my "pessimism" is reality (I'm not even
being pessimistic, this is just the facts of the matter).


On top of that, I follow dudes like this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goertzel

Who've authored books like this :

And If things go the way I plan them to, I won't be "Cheer leading"
I'll be "playing the game" so to speak.

So why even bring up the Turing test as a way to validate.

I understand you have an appreciation and an interest, but I work in manufacturing and warehousing, in fact I'm overseeing a project in one of our warehouses now...I see automation replace jobs regularly.

I don't claim to know exactly what the future holds, but i know it will consist of humans doing little to no work. What that means for people....

Ray Kurzweil futurist also debunks the claim :
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/11/5800440/ray-kurzweil-and-others-say-turing-test-not-passed

On a more serious note (I see that you genuinely replied).
There are certain hurdles that would have to be overcome before
robots can take over the entirety of the work force.
Specialists are the ones that I think won't be replaced so easily
because their jobs require years of practice and experience.
A surgeon for example, won't see himself losing his job
to a robot because :
That robot would need a power source that'd
actually last (if it isn't some sort of machine you're loading a person into).
It'd need the ability to judge and assess a situation (something that
would require a certain level of intelligence that is beyond machines in 2014
and has been for the past century)
Finally, it'd need dexterity (if we're talking Irobot/C3po type robots)
or the sort of fine motor skills that has taken nature millions
of years to perfect.
That's just one example that can be extended to things as simple as fixing pipes
or as complex as assessing damage on a car.

And a lot of the "robots" used in manufacturing are specialist machines,designed
by engineers usually to fulfill ONE role.

 

[Vandelay]

Technology and productivity always advance.

 

[Insensitive]

Technology and productivity always advance.

Who said it didn't ?

 

[tmonster]

The basis of my "pessimism" is reality (I'm not even
being pessimistic, this is just the facts of the matter).


On top of that, I follow dudes like this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Goertzel

Who've authored books like this :

And If things go the way I plan them to, I won't be "Cheer leading"
I'll be "playing the game" so to speak.






Ray Kurzweil futurist also debunks the claim :
http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/11/5800440/ray-kurzweil-and-others-say-turing-test-not-passed

On a more serious note (I see that you genuinely replied).
There are certain hurdles that would have to be overcome before
robots can take over the entirety of the work force.
Specialists are the ones that I think won't be replaced so easily
because their jobs require years of practice and experience.
A surgeon for example, won't see himself losing his job
to a robot because :
That robot would need a power source that'd
actually last (if it isn't some sort of machine you're loading a person into).
It'd need the ability to judge and assess a situation (something that
would require a certain level of intelligence that is beyond machines in 2014
and has been for the past century)
Finally, it'd need dexterity (if we're talking Irobot/C3po type robots)
or the sort of fine motor skills that has taken nature millions
of years to perfect.
That's just one example that can be extended to things as simple as fixing pipes
or as complex as assessing damage on a car.

And a lot of the "robots" used in manufacturing are specialist machines,designed
by engineers usually to fulfill ONE role.

I don't really see a significant answer to my rather rhetorical questions

 

[Vandelay]

@Insensitive Thanks for the genuine reply...

Much like global warming was a misnomer for climate change, robots are a misnomer for automation.

I said Technology advances because it's silly to think the automatons will be limited to one or 2 rudimentary tasks.

Why is it far fetched to think

Spoiler: this...

""]

Won't be automated...

As a someone who studies robots and ai, you have to be down right aloof to ignore the fact that all of these technologies will eventually converge.

You speak of power sources for said automation as if the fastest processors of today don't use significantly less electricity then the humongous mainframes of decades past.

Obviously, everyone can't be a specialist or a troubleshooter of all this automation...and that IS the point of this thread; the ever-increasing pyramiding of money, jobs, and power. And ultimately, to program automation to troubleshoot other automation isn't overly as complex as people make it seem either.

My point is, and subsequently my problem is people need to be cognizant of this and the potential implications it has for humanity. Most people aren't. (No Robopocalyse)

 

[tmonster]

@Insensitive Thanks for the genuine reply...

Much like global warming was a misnomer for climate change, robots are a misnomer for automation.

I said Technology advances because it's silly to think the automatons will be limited to one or 2 rudimentary tasks.

Why is it far fetched to think

Spoiler: this...

""]

Won't be automated...

As a someone who studies robots and ai, you have to be down right aloof to ignore the fact that all of these technologies will eventually converge.

You speak of power sources for said automation as if the fastest processors of today don't use significantly less electricity then the humongous mainframes of decades past.

Obviously, everyone can't be a specialist or a troubleshooter of all this automation...and that IS the point of this thread; the ever-increasing pyramiding of money, jobs, and power. And ultimately, to program automation to troubleshoot other automation isn't overly as complex as people make it seem either.

My point is, and subsequently my problem is people need to be cognizant of this and the potential implications it has for humanity. Most people aren't. (No Robopocalyse)

You are very patient

 

[Vandelay]

You are very patient

I like jousting.

Spoiler: ...

And I'm bored as fukk in Bumblefukk, Texas