FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > They took our jobs!
They took our jobs!
Jump to: Newest in thread
I read today the government wants driverless cars on the motorways by 2019. It got me wondering. In one article I read a technogoly expert pointed out robots can fly planes, trade on the stock market but can't clean your toilet. So what does that tell you? Its far cheaper and simpler to make robotic brains and AI than it is to make robotic bodies. So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
IBM Watson is a scary prospect.
They gave a legal team a problem. The same problem to Watson.
The legal team took 2 weeks to come up with an answer. Watson took hours. Complex research and decision making done in a fraction of the time.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rwolfMan
over a year ago
bristol |
Aircraft have been flying on autopilot for over a decade...the only reason a pilot is there is just in case things go wrong
Getting a machine to do various jobs does make sense, however it completely negates things like gut instinct, the ability to think outside the box.
Russian scientists are working on a robot that can fire guns...purely for space exploration of course.. But still
With quantum core cpus being worked on its another step closer to a world where we think less and rely more on tech to think for us |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"IBM Watson is a scary prospect.
They gave a legal team a problem. The same problem to Watson.
The legal team took 2 weeks to come up with an answer. Watson took hours. Complex research and decision making done in a fraction of the time.
"
This my concern on the employment point of view. Here a hypothetical example. In the future:
An office cleaner on £14k PA can be replaced by a complex cleaning robot (loads od sensors, moving parts ect) that costs £40k plus an expensive support and maintaince contract.
A solicitor on £60k PA can be replaced by a computer costing £2k plus a fairly cheap support and maintenance contract.
Who will be the first to lose their job. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"IBM Watson is a scary prospect.
They gave a legal team a problem. The same problem to Watson.
The legal team took 2 weeks to come up with an answer. Watson took hours. Complex research and decision making done in a fraction of the time.
This my concern on the employment point of view. Here a hypothetical example. In the future:
An office cleaner on £14k PA can be replaced by a complex cleaning robot (loads od sensors, moving parts ect) that costs £40k plus an expensive support and maintaince contract.
A solicitor on £60k PA can be replaced by a computer costing £2k plus a fairly cheap support and maintenance contract.
Who will be the first to lose their job."
Where did these costings come from?
And it doesn't matter who come first as a job replaced by technology is a job gone! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"IBM Watson is a scary prospect.
They gave a legal team a problem. The same problem to Watson.
The legal team took 2 weeks to come up with an answer. Watson took hours. Complex research and decision making done in a fraction of the time.
This my concern on the employment point of view. Here a hypothetical example. In the future:
An office cleaner on £14k PA can be replaced by a complex cleaning robot (loads od sensors, moving parts ect) that costs £40k plus an expensive support and maintaince contract.
A solicitor on £60k PA can be replaced by a computer costing £2k plus a fairly cheap support and maintenance contract.
Who will be the first to lose their job.
Where did these costings come from?
And it doesn't matter who come first as a job replaced by technology is a job gone!"
Costings are rough figures for example purposes. The point is AI is becoming cheap to produce and very cheap to replicate as it's software. But a lot of manual jobs would take expensive robotics to replace. I think AI will see a lot of the often higher paid 'brain jobs' replaced very quickly and cheaply. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just to add....the most menial job and back breaking job was potato picking.
That went a long time ago to machines.
Good or bad?"
This has been the way with previous industrial/technological revolutions. But I think AI changes the game. It's far better at replacing our brain focused skilled jobs cheaply. Robotics for complex manual tasks are very expensive. We are looking very different game with AI. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Jobs are not disappearing. Jobs are changing. A hundred years ago halls filled with clerks used to do the work that is now done by a computer. Since then the entire IT sector was born, something that didn't exist before.
An interesting documentary is tje effect that oil has had on our civilisation. Considering that only one nation hasn't passed their oil reserve half lives there may come a time where those old jobs become reborn....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today the government wants driverless cars on the motorways by 2019. It got me wondering. In one article I read a technogoly expert pointed out robots can fly planes, trade on the stock market but can't clean your toilet. So what does that tell you? Its far cheaper and simpler to make robotic brains and AI than it is to make robotic bodies. So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?"
I don't know which expert claimed a robot can't clean a toilet but they are wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people. Expect there to be no political party that covers this in their manifestos etc.
Money will be going to the wealthy more increasingly and the masses will become vastly poorer with minimal chances to income. Awful if you've not got stock in or are the brains behind the right robotics and tech inventions.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
When the Victoria Line was opened in 1968 the initial plan was to have driverless trains but there was a concern that passengers might not feel safe without there being a driver (and the unions might have had the hump too), so 'drivers' were retained whose sole job on the train is to open and close the doors. That's all they're employed to do. The trains themselves drive automatically |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
"
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs. "
Oh yeah I can see that happening.
It's more then likely the poor will be euthanised to keep the planet for the rich when there is no use for them! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people. Expect there to be no political party that covers this in their manifestos etc.
Money will be going to the wealthy more increasingly and the masses will become vastly poorer with minimal chances to income. Awful if you've not got stock in or are the brains behind the right robotics and tech inventions.
"
Except the unemployed masses will have no money to produce the products and services of the robots that replaced them.......and the peasants will have more time to be revolting |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today the government wants driverless cars on the motorways by 2019. It got me wondering. In one article I read a technogoly expert pointed out robots can fly planes, trade on the stock market but can't clean your toilet. So what does that tell you? Its far cheaper and simpler to make robotic brains and AI than it is to make robotic bodies. So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
I don't know which expert claimed a robot can't clean a toilet but they are wrong. "
yes those self cleaning cubicles |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs. "
The reduction in the daily grinf 5 days a week - more for many - would be great ...
But our culture would mean that less working hours would mean reduced income for the ever larger volumes of people in zero hours jobs. Poverty will become the new norm for the masses.
We've already had a government turning the population against people too ill for work getting a tiny pittance in benefits - how would it go if millions never worked but wanted benefits?
Currently the major tech firms will control the supply of robotics and tech used to replace jobs. They will be the recipients of £@$€ huge amounts and most will live on nothing.
We're not planning or preparing as a culture with how to deal with this. Short sighted politicians etc don't help. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ranfondoMan
over a year ago
Cambridgeshire |
Self driving cars.... Hmmm.... Taxi drivers... Then self driving lorries & vans... Still need a menial to unload the vans but think of the control of the movements of lorries and cars to minimise disruption.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Will never happen people need to have money to spend and jobs to get it, in order for any economy to flourish ther is already so much technology that has been restricted from the main stream public as a result and ther will no doubt be plenty more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs.
The reduction in the daily grinf 5 days a week - more for many - would be great ...
But our culture would mean that less working hours would mean reduced income for the ever larger volumes of people in zero hours jobs. Poverty will become the new norm for the masses.
We've already had a government turning the population against people too ill for work getting a tiny pittance in benefits - how would it go if millions never worked but wanted benefits?
Currently the major tech firms will control the supply of robotics and tech used to replace jobs. They will be the recipients of £@$€ huge amounts and most will live on nothing.
We're not planning or preparing as a culture with how to deal with this. Short sighted politicians etc don't help. "
Money is just an exchange mechanism, there is no inherent fixed price to anything.
You say poverty will become the new norm but you ignore the fact that the average standard of living for the average person is dramatically better now than it was 1,000, 500 or even 200 years ago. Why do you suppose that would change? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Self driving cars.... Hmmm.... Taxi drivers... Then self driving lorries & vans... Still need a menial to unload the vans but think of the control of the movements of lorries and cars to minimise disruption.... "
But this is where I think people are missing the point. There will still be jobs but AI threatens higher end jobs. For instance say a lorry still needs someone on-board to say load. This job needs no skill or qualification. The driverless lorry does the skilled bit. So would this person get paid the same or min wage considering little training and no qualification needed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Will never happen people need to have money to spend and jobs to get it, in order for any economy to flourish ther is already so much technology that has been restricted from the main stream public as a result and ther will no doubt be plenty more."
What technology has been restricted from the public? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
yes and it should have left us better off decades ago already.
giving menial tasks to robots is a great idea.
AI isn't that great as of now but is improving all the time. someone will also have to programme the AI too...even if they self learn they don't actually write their own programmes. but, as has been pointed out already, they can do some tasks much quicker than us.
robots are taking the menial jobs mostly, and the dangerous ones (such as checking out places that are to raditated for humans to check out).
the biggest problem is the lack of employment for humans, which is already a problem now and all that is being done about it is blame others for it so nobody has to do anything still.
there could be a possible high tax put on people who employ robots. but taxes only help the government decide where that money goes and doesn't leave unemployed people with a lot of choices if they haven't got their own money and no means to obtain that.
we could all be better off, but there is going to be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050. there will be a food crisis if we continue as we are doing now. will the rich want to retain their power and over-security at the expense of others? i'm sure most will as they want to keep now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"But where will it all end..everyone sat around doing nothing at all in a skill less world?
Scary thought.."
i have the resources to study and learn and do this when i have free time. i've learned some very interesting things and all for free.
now my internet isn't free, and neither is my electric, but the courses are so i'm doing them.
we seem to have this fallacy of if you let people choose what to do with their life then they will waste it. i personally see the opposite mostly. when we restrict people from having things that would benefit them, then they waste it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"yes and it should have left us better off decades ago already.
giving menial tasks to robots is a great idea.
AI isn't that great as of now but is improving all the time. someone will also have to programme the AI too...even if they self learn they don't actually write their own programmes. but, as has been pointed out already, they can do some tasks much quicker than us.
robots are taking the menial jobs mostly, and the dangerous ones (such as checking out places that are to raditated for humans to check out).
the biggest problem is the lack of employment for humans, which is already a problem now and all that is being done about it is blame others for it so nobody has to do anything still.
there could be a possible high tax put on people who employ robots. but taxes only help the government decide where that money goes and doesn't leave unemployed people with a lot of choices if they haven't got their own money and no means to obtain that.
we could all be better off, but there is going to be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050. there will be a food crisis if we continue as we are doing now. will the rich want to retain their power and over-security at the expense of others? i'm sure most will as they want to keep now."
Lack of employment opportunities now is only because our society is not very automated. As in food isn't coming out the ground or off the tree with the aid of any robot yet. But once robots can provide food, water, medicine, clothes and electricity then why would anyone want to work more than 1 or 2 days a week? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Will never happen people need to have money to spend and jobs to get it, in order for any economy to flourish ther is already so much technology that has been restricted from the main stream public as a result and ther will no doubt be plenty more.
What technology has been restricted from the public? "
Shit loads, flying to the moon, area 51, cyborg and high end x-ray vision to name but a few. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Jobs are not disappearing. Jobs are changing. A hundred years ago halls filled with clerks used to do the work that is now done by a computer. Since then the entire IT sector was born, something that didn't exist before.
An interesting documentary is tje effect that oil has had on our civilisation. Considering that only one nation hasn't passed their oil reserve half lives there may come a time where those old jobs become reborn.... "
Yes traditionally new jobs have come. Often more pleasant and less labour intensive. I think AI could flip this trend. Never before has a robot been able to match us mentally. But AI is showing already capabilities of learning from environment, reasoning, problem solving, making predictions, control equipment ect. Plus it is software and massively cheap to adapt and replicate. From a business point of view why paid high wages to very skilled blue collar workers when a relatively cheap computer can do it. If anything AI is a threat to a lot of high income desk type jobs. Robot are less a threat to menial jobs like cleaners. Thus reversing the trend of previous industrial/tech revolutions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Will never happen people need to have money to spend and jobs to get it, in order for any economy to flourish ther is already so much technology that has been restricted from the main stream public as a result and ther will no doubt be plenty more.
What technology has been restricted from the public? "
Agree it does pose an interesting future problem. The sickness of is it's need to constantly produce as efficiently as possible. Ironically that effiecency could lead to unemployment. Which in turn could limit the supply of consumers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today the government wants driverless cars on the motorways by 2019. It got me wondering. In one article I read a technogoly expert pointed out robots can fly planes, trade on the stock market but can't clean your toilet. So what does that tell you? Its far cheaper and simpler to make robotic brains and AI than it is to make robotic bodies. So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
I don't know which expert claimed a robot can't clean a toilet but they are wrong. "
Do you know of a robot that can clean everything, across multiple locations, multiple room layouts, multiple surfaces, climb stairs, assess the type of mess and use the right products like a human cleaner. Wow, they must be a very clever and super expensive robot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"yes and it should have left us better off decades ago already.
giving menial tasks to robots is a great idea.
AI isn't that great as of now but is improving all the time. someone will also have to programme the AI too...even if they self learn they don't actually write their own programmes. but, as has been pointed out already, they can do some tasks much quicker than us.
robots are taking the menial jobs mostly, and the dangerous ones (such as checking out places that are to raditated for humans to check out).
the biggest problem is the lack of employment for humans, which is already a problem now and all that is being done about it is blame others for it so nobody has to do anything still.
there could be a possible high tax put on people who employ robots. but taxes only help the government decide where that money goes and doesn't leave unemployed people with a lot of choices if they haven't got their own money and no means to obtain that.
we could all be better off, but there is going to be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050. there will be a food crisis if we continue as we are doing now. will the rich want to retain their power and over-security at the expense of others? i'm sure most will as they want to keep now.
Lack of employment opportunities now is only because our society is not very automated. As in food isn't coming out the ground or off the tree with the aid of any robot yet. But once robots can provide food, water, medicine, clothes and electricity then why would anyone want to work more than 1 or 2 days a week? "
? demand for jobs (end product) will always equal job opportunities.
anyway we're supposed to be on 3 day working week since the 1970s, but instead what happened is people were aided by technology and their employers demanded more production instead of cutting hours or sharing jobs more equally. that's part of it.
instead of it creating a more equal society employers instead sought ways to save money for themselves at optimal production rates. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people. Expect there to be no political party that covers this in their manifestos etc.
Money will be going to the wealthy more increasingly and the masses will become vastly poorer with minimal chances to income. Awful if you've not got stock in or are the brains behind the right robotics and tech inventions.
"
This is a real danger. On the whole people are only paid what they are worth to their employer. This is mainly based on supply and demand of their skill set. If AI can do these jobs we will not be employed. This could result in a growing gap between rich and poor.
I thing AI also posses a threat in developing countries. In a few years I bet it would be more than capable of replaying all them call centre jobs in India. Making 1000s unemployed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"yes and it should have left us better off decades ago already.
giving menial tasks to robots is a great idea.
AI isn't that great as of now but is improving all the time. someone will also have to programme the AI too...even if they self learn they don't actually write their own programmes. but, as has been pointed out already, they can do some tasks much quicker than us.
robots are taking the menial jobs mostly, and the dangerous ones (such as checking out places that are to raditated for humans to check out).
the biggest problem is the lack of employment for humans, which is already a problem now and all that is being done about it is blame others for it so nobody has to do anything still.
there could be a possible high tax put on people who employ robots. but taxes only help the government decide where that money goes and doesn't leave unemployed people with a lot of choices if they haven't got their own money and no means to obtain that.
we could all be better off, but there is going to be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050. there will be a food crisis if we continue as we are doing now. will the rich want to retain their power and over-security at the expense of others? i'm sure most will as they want to keep now.
Lack of employment opportunities now is only because our society is not very automated. As in food isn't coming out the ground or off the tree with the aid of any robot yet. But once robots can provide food, water, medicine, clothes and electricity then why would anyone want to work more than 1 or 2 days a week?
? demand for jobs (end product) will always equal job opportunities.
anyway we're supposed to be on 3 day working week since the 1970s, but instead what happened is people were aided by technology and their employers demanded more production instead of cutting hours or sharing jobs more equally. that's part of it.
instead of it creating a more equal society employers instead sought ways to save money for themselves at optimal production rates."
It's more that AI threatens high paid jobs rather than all jobs. You may be right but where will these jobs come from. AI is showing it potential to do so many jobs in the future. Never before has a technogoly threatened are most valuable asset, our brains in such a drastic way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When the Victoria Line was opened in 1968 the initial plan was to have driverless trains but there was a concern that passengers might not feel safe without there being a driver (and the unions might have had the hump too), so 'drivers' were retained whose sole job on the train is to open and close the doors. That's all they're employed to do. The trains themselves drive automatically"
That is more the exception rather than the norm within employment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs. "
That all relies on how we handle the change as a society. We could all share in the fruits of the robots labour or the elite few could. I think we have some interesting challenges ahead in terms of employment and how money is earned. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *40 maleMan
over a year ago
chesterfield |
"I read today the government wants driverless cars on the motorways by 2019. It got me wondering. In one article I read a technogoly expert pointed out robots can fly planes, trade on the stock market but can't clean your toilet. So what does that tell you? Its far cheaper and simpler to make robotic brains and AI than it is to make robotic bodies. So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?"
Apple, one of the richest companies in the world can't make a mobile phone battery that lasts more than a day, who will charge all the robots up every few hours? Think we're safe for a little while longer |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" Or maybe we need to change our jobs and skills? Get trained in the servicing of such machines, cyber security etc? Nothing ever stays the same? "
Trouble is AI threatens so many of these jobs too. This is main difference. It will be like no other industrial/tech revolution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today the government wants driverless cars on the motorways by 2019. It got me wondering. In one article I read a technogoly expert pointed out robots can fly planes, trade on the stock market but can't clean your toilet. So what does that tell you? Its far cheaper and simpler to make robotic brains and AI than it is to make robotic bodies. So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
Apple, one of the richest companies in the world can't make a mobile phone battery that lasts more than a day, who will charge all the robots up every few hours? Think we're safe for a little while longer "
This is party why robotics are expensive and troublesome. It's hard and expensive to get a robot to do many manual menial jobs. But AI can do many of the high wage desk type jobs. It's the blue collar workers, banker etc that need to watch out, not the painters and decorators etc. The robots will cream off the best paid jobs and leave the menial work to us. Plus with more demand for the jobs robots can't do wages will drop. Supply and demand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today the government wants driverless cars on the motorways by 2019. It got me wondering. In one article I read a technogoly expert pointed out robots can fly planes, trade on the stock market but can't clean your toilet. So what does that tell you? Its far cheaper and simpler to make robotic brains and AI than it is to make robotic bodies. So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
I don't know which expert claimed a robot can't clean a toilet but they are wrong.
Do you know of a robot that can clean everything, across multiple locations, multiple room layouts, multiple surfaces, climb stairs, assess the type of mess and use the right products like a human cleaner. Wow, they must be a very clever and super expensive robot."
Exactly! It's not that a robot can't do it - it's just more economically feasible for a minimum wage human to do it. But that's not what was said in the OP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Vote ROBOT on 8th June 
Do a better job than Aliens running it now "
Not convinced, don't the robots want to kill all humans? Wasn't that a policy?
At least the current ruling Aliens only want to kill poor people, or at least giving it a good go. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I read today the government wants driverless cars on the motorways by 2019. It got me wondering. In one article I read a technogoly expert pointed out robots can fly planes, trade on the stock market but can't clean your toilet. So what does that tell you? Its far cheaper and simpler to make robotic brains and AI than it is to make robotic bodies. So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
I don't know which expert claimed a robot can't clean a toilet but they are wrong.
Do you know of a robot that can clean everything, across multiple locations, multiple room layouts, multiple surfaces, climb stairs, assess the type of mess and use the right products like a human cleaner. Wow, they must be a very clever and super expensive robot.
Exactly! It's not that a robot can't do it - it's just more economically feasible for a minimum wage human to do it. But that's not what was said in the OP."
Maybe a confusion. If you read the start you'll see my concern is mainly AI taking most of the high end jobs and leaving only low wage jobs. I don't think I have ever said anything other. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"yes and it should have left us better off decades ago already.
giving menial tasks to robots is a great idea.
AI isn't that great as of now but is improving all the time. someone will also have to programme the AI too...even if they self learn they don't actually write their own programmes. but, as has been pointed out already, they can do some tasks much quicker than us.
robots are taking the menial jobs mostly, and the dangerous ones (such as checking out places that are to raditated for humans to check out).
the biggest problem is the lack of employment for humans, which is already a problem now and all that is being done about it is blame others for it so nobody has to do anything still.
there could be a possible high tax put on people who employ robots. but taxes only help the government decide where that money goes and doesn't leave unemployed people with a lot of choices if they haven't got their own money and no means to obtain that.
we could all be better off, but there is going to be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050. there will be a food crisis if we continue as we are doing now. will the rich want to retain their power and over-security at the expense of others? i'm sure most will as they want to keep now.
Lack of employment opportunities now is only because our society is not very automated. As in food isn't coming out the ground or off the tree with the aid of any robot yet. But once robots can provide food, water, medicine, clothes and electricity then why would anyone want to work more than 1 or 2 days a week?
? demand for jobs (end product) will always equal job opportunities.
anyway we're supposed to be on 3 day working week since the 1970s, but instead what happened is people were aided by technology and their employers demanded more production instead of cutting hours or sharing jobs more equally. that's part of it.
instead of it creating a more equal society employers instead sought ways to save money for themselves at optimal production rates.
It's more that AI threatens high paid jobs rather than all jobs. You may be right but where will these jobs come from. AI is showing it potential to do so many jobs in the future. Never before has a technogoly threatened are most valuable asset, our brains in such a drastic way. "
many jobs now are already pointless, kind of. we've seen a huge rise in people making money off people who are making money...thing is now the internet is a lot more convenient this means these jobs may or may not be needed any more.
why do you think advertising makes so much money? and so many agencies now making money off people?
seriously. i don't get why so many agencies exist and have become quite a norm. it's just people being middle men and making money off that.
say a job agency, they don't have any jobs on offer per se or employees but pass these things onto each other when each of them are looking for each other and don't need a middle man to do that.
we live in a world that is connected already and does not need middle men any more. even the government forces you to sign up for these stupid money scrapers if you're looking for a job. it's pointless and proves they don't know what they're doing or are forcing a system onto us that is pointless just so that certain people make money doing pointless shit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"yes and it should have left us better off decades ago already.
giving menial tasks to robots is a great idea.
AI isn't that great as of now but is improving all the time. someone will also have to programme the AI too...even if they self learn they don't actually write their own programmes. but, as has been pointed out already, they can do some tasks much quicker than us.
robots are taking the menial jobs mostly, and the dangerous ones (such as checking out places that are to raditated for humans to check out).
the biggest problem is the lack of employment for humans, which is already a problem now and all that is being done about it is blame others for it so nobody has to do anything still.
there could be a possible high tax put on people who employ robots. but taxes only help the government decide where that money goes and doesn't leave unemployed people with a lot of choices if they haven't got their own money and no means to obtain that.
we could all be better off, but there is going to be 2 billion more people on the planet by 2050. there will be a food crisis if we continue as we are doing now. will the rich want to retain their power and over-security at the expense of others? i'm sure most will as they want to keep now.
Lack of employment opportunities now is only because our society is not very automated. As in food isn't coming out the ground or off the tree with the aid of any robot yet. But once robots can provide food, water, medicine, clothes and electricity then why would anyone want to work more than 1 or 2 days a week?
? demand for jobs (end product) will always equal job opportunities.
anyway we're supposed to be on 3 day working week since the 1970s, but instead what happened is people were aided by technology and their employers demanded more production instead of cutting hours or sharing jobs more equally. that's part of it.
instead of it creating a more equal society employers instead sought ways to save money for themselves at optimal production rates."
Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself. "
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'."
Personally i don't want pure equality because i believe results should be linked to inputs and some people put in more than others. I do have close friends who are severely disabled and their treatment is a joke but they are long term disabled and it was just as bad under Labour frankly. So I'd like better treatment for those who cannot produce resources but equality of opportunity is what i believe in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh god every time i have scrolled past this i have read it in the southpark way."
I can't help any chance to sneak in a Southpark quotation. I think you are the first to mention it (correct me if I am wrong). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Logan's Run is where we're heading, after 30 years you've used up all the resources that can be made available for no effort on your part.
Say hello to the Morlock's for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'."
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
Personally i don't want pure equality because i believe results should be linked to inputs and some people put in more than others. I do have close friends who are severely disabled and their treatment is a joke but they are long term disabled and it was just as bad under Labour frankly. So I'd like better treatment for those who cannot produce resources but equality of opportunity is what i believe in. "
i think i should've said equal opportunities. sorry about that.
i get how some people enjoy working a lot and could get a lot done. just why should everyone have to?
idk, everything is fucked up since we changed to odds of surviving to mean those with more money get a better quality of life and more longevity with that. especially when there's people working hard and not being valued for that. most people just wanna live their lives peacefully and get on with it, that's part of the problem i think but taking away their power is another.
will AI contribute to more of this? probably. depends who owns the programmes and resources for making the robots and what they're allowed to do with them.
idk, politics never makes any sense to me anyway and nobody is gonna get what they want from life while we all have to compromise, with many are being forced to.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity."
get rid of the monetary system altogether. we've used bartering for a long time but maybe now it would be good to go back to something a little more 'real'. where people and things are valued because they are needed and wanted and not just because they are new and available?
it could work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
U got any in your shop?"
Nope, but there are handheld ones similar to the fleshlight that do much the same thing that retail around 150£ for the cheapest ones.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity.
get rid of the monetary system altogether. we've used bartering for a long time but maybe now it would be good to go back to something a little more 'real'. where people and things are valued because they are needed and wanted and not just because they are new and available?
it could work."
Well money's all a bit of a fraud anyway. Paper money and money in a bank account is all IOU's anyway. More IOU's than the gold to back it up. Bring back the gold standard I say. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity.
get rid of the monetary system altogether. we've used bartering for a long time but maybe now it would be good to go back to something a little more 'real'. where people and things are valued because they are needed and wanted and not just because they are new and available?
it could work.
Well money's all a bit of a fraud anyway. Paper money and money in a bank account is all IOU's anyway. More IOU's than the gold to back it up. Bring back the gold standard I say."
dunno. we need a huge shift in a lot of things now to get people to act differently. but most recycle and that worked. maybe looking towards changing the attitudes of future generations is our only hope even. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity.
get rid of the monetary system altogether. we've used bartering for a long time but maybe now it would be good to go back to something a little more 'real'. where people and things are valued because they are needed and wanted and not just because they are new and available?
it could work.
Well money's all a bit of a fraud anyway. Paper money and money in a bank account is all IOU's anyway. More IOU's than the gold to back it up. Bring back the gold standard I say."
Gold standard lol!!! Money is nothing more than an exchange mechanism. Gold is little different other than it looks prettier than a £5 note. Some economies run on goats... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity.
get rid of the monetary system altogether. we've used bartering for a long time but maybe now it would be good to go back to something a little more 'real'. where people and things are valued because they are needed and wanted and not just because they are new and available?
it could work.
Well money's all a bit of a fraud anyway. Paper money and money in a bank account is all IOU's anyway. More IOU's than the gold to back it up. Bring back the gold standard I say.
Gold standard lol!!! Money is nothing more than an exchange mechanism. Gold is little different other than it looks prettier than a £5 note. Some economies run on goats... "
At least they run on something tangible and of recognised value in that society. If everyone wanted to trade there paper money in for gold (the item it is backed against) there would not be enough gold. That is sort of fraud in my book. Likewise if it was backed against goats I would expect the amount of goat iou's to match the amount of goats. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity.
get rid of the monetary system altogether. we've used bartering for a long time but maybe now it would be good to go back to something a little more 'real'. where people and things are valued because they are needed and wanted and not just because they are new and available?
it could work.
Well money's all a bit of a fraud anyway. Paper money and money in a bank account is all IOU's anyway. More IOU's than the gold to back it up. Bring back the gold standard I say.
Gold standard lol!!! Money is nothing more than an exchange mechanism. Gold is little different other than it looks prettier than a £5 note. Some economies run on goats...
At least they run on something tangible and of recognised value in that society. If everyone wanted to trade there paper money in for gold (the item it is backed against) there would not be enough gold. That is sort of fraud in my book. Likewise if it was backed against goats I would expect the amount of goat iou's to match the amount of goats. "
There's no inherent value to gold, that's the flaw in your logic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity.
get rid of the monetary system altogether. we've used bartering for a long time but maybe now it would be good to go back to something a little more 'real'. where people and things are valued because they are needed and wanted and not just because they are new and available?
it could work.
Well money's all a bit of a fraud anyway. Paper money and money in a bank account is all IOU's anyway. More IOU's than the gold to back it up. Bring back the gold standard I say.
Gold standard lol!!! Money is nothing more than an exchange mechanism. Gold is little different other than it looks prettier than a £5 note. Some economies run on goats...
At least they run on something tangible and of recognised value in that society. If everyone wanted to trade there paper money in for gold (the item it is backed against) there would not be enough gold. That is sort of fraud in my book. Likewise if it was backed against goats I would expect the amount of goat iou's to match the amount of goats.
There's no inherent value to gold, that's the flaw in your logic. "
But there is in this world. Currencies have crashed and and paper become worthless, accounts disaper but gold has always been sort after. Obvisoly maybe not in a post apocalyptic world or examples of extreme desperation. Then of course things like food and water are more valuble. But in general context gold is a very reliable and stable thing of value. That's why banks were originally set up to protect your gold. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Think of it this way, the number of people employed to wash clothes by hand today is close to zero because for 10% of the average monthly wage you can buy a machine that does it. But most technology was actually about enabling humans to work faster like production line technology, mobile phones and the interweb. The difference in the future is that AI enables more of the former technology that can liferally produce and end product or service by itself.
no AI will be able to fill a washer though. but i kind of get what you mean. it has given us the means to be more self centered and able to do more for ourselves, but this is demanding of our time also. i do think that we have over estimated how much humans can do feasibly because of tech. or how much they should.
it would be nice if we created a more equal society using technology. like all physically disabled people become able bodied, either by using tech to give their body the means to or we change the environment so they fit into that easier.
you know, there's just so much we could do now and are not and i'd love to know why without being cynical as fuck and thinking it's coz humans are greedy, unstable fucks who just don't want equality coz they're fucked up and need to feel 'better'.
I agree it opens opportunities for a more leisured society. Giving us more time to raise kids, spend time together as families and communities and follow personal interests. But that would mean a different system of how money is obtained maybe. My worry is that those who hold the power won't share. That's where we as a collective may have to use our collective power to make change. And that is why democracy is still such a revolutionary and powerful veichle. I really do think AI will bring both solutions and serious challenges to humanity.
get rid of the monetary system altogether. we've used bartering for a long time but maybe now it would be good to go back to something a little more 'real'. where people and things are valued because they are needed and wanted and not just because they are new and available?
it could work.
Well money's all a bit of a fraud anyway. Paper money and money in a bank account is all IOU's anyway. More IOU's than the gold to back it up. Bring back the gold standard I say.
Gold standard lol!!! Money is nothing more than an exchange mechanism. Gold is little different other than it looks prettier than a £5 note. Some economies run on goats...
At least they run on something tangible and of recognised value in that society. If everyone wanted to trade there paper money in for gold (the item it is backed against) there would not be enough gold. That is sort of fraud in my book. Likewise if it was backed against goats I would expect the amount of goat iou's to match the amount of goats.
There's no inherent value to gold, that's the flaw in your logic.
But there is in this world. Currencies have crashed and and paper become worthless, accounts disaper but gold has always been sort after. Obvisoly maybe not in a post apocalyptic world or examples of extreme desperation. Then of course things like food and water are more valuble. But in general context gold is a very reliable and stable thing of value. That's why banks were originally set up to protect your gold."
Over the long run gold doesn't even appreciate in value at the same rate of inflation. It's only practical use is short term hedging. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *htcMan
over a year ago
MK |
its a bad idea, if cars taxis trucks deliverys manual labours, go driverless or robotic, then it will be a world war to wipe out over half the population as no one will have a job,
not just those jobs telephone service, customer service centres, it, medical, etc..,
nearly every job will almost be robotic, so there wont be a need for many humans on earth, as robots can do the job faster accurate and 24/7 and cheaper. humans will only be a few million or less, as there is no need for many any more |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"its a bad idea, if cars taxis trucks deliverys manual labours, go driverless or robotic, then it will be a world war to wipe out over half the population as no one will have a job,
not just those jobs telephone service, customer service centres, it, medical, etc..,
nearly every job will almost be robotic, so there wont be a need for many humans on earth, as robots can do the job faster accurate and 24/7 and cheaper. humans will only be a few million or less, as there is no need for many any more"
It's interesting that Japan is at the front of a lot of technology and it's population is masivly decreasing. In fact one of the big Japanese banks if looking to replace a huge part of its workforce with AI. Could the Japanese model be a glism into the future? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's all a false economy. Think about it! With out a workforce you have no consumers! The money men will invest their billions in worthless technology. What's the point of having robots doing the work of 5 million people producing products that no one can buy because they are all unemployed. The rich will then lose their investments as they'll have millions of expensive toys knocking around that do nothing. The people could go back to growing thier own veg and working the land to gain food if need be! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It's all a false economy. Think about it! With out a workforce you have no consumers! The money men will invest their billions in worthless technology. What's the point of having robots doing the work of 5 million people producing products that no one can buy because they are all unemployed. The rich will then lose their investments as they'll have millions of expensive toys knocking around that do nothing. The people could go back to growing thier own veg and working the land to gain food if need be!"
I agree but that's why it poses so much potential problems and questions. This is a different kettle of fish from that that has gone before. Hopefully we find an equilibrium somewhere but there could be some painful times ahead as a result of AI. There are also real concerns about AI becoming sentient, which is a real possibility. What if it becomes hostile towards us? What if it realises that humans are the biggest parocite on the planet. There are some real big thinkers who are seriously concerned about AI. Its funny how life often imitates science fiction. Let's hope it's not terminator. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"It's all a false economy. Think about it! With out a workforce you have no consumers! The money men will invest their billions in worthless technology. What's the point of having robots doing the work of 5 million people producing products that no one can buy because they are all unemployed. The rich will then lose their investments as they'll have millions of expensive toys knocking around that do nothing. The people could go back to growing thier own veg and working the land to gain food if need be!"
the venus project.
i think we might be headed towards something like that for the future. either that or an apocalypse where we have to fight for survival because of lack of resources. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs.
The reduction in the daily grinf 5 days a week - more for many - would be great ...
But our culture would mean that less working hours would mean reduced income for the ever larger volumes of people in zero hours jobs. Poverty will become the new norm for the masses.
We've already had a government turning the population against people too ill for work getting a tiny pittance in benefits - how would it go if millions never worked but wanted benefits?
Currently the major tech firms will control the supply of robotics and tech used to replace jobs. They will be the recipients of £@$€ huge amounts and most will live on nothing.
We're not planning or preparing as a culture with how to deal with this. Short sighted politicians etc don't help.
Money is just an exchange mechanism, there is no inherent fixed price to anything.
You say poverty will become the new norm but you ignore the fact that the average standard of living for the average person is dramatically better now than it was 1,000, 500 or even 200 years ago. Why do you suppose that would change? "
You're right that our living standards have become fantastic compared to most of our human history - but thing may not continue to improve.
If less people are needed as employees or self employed, due to tech replacing them, then we could have millions without income. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Advances in technology will one day (perhaps soon) make humanity and capitalism incompatible. "
I don't see why, most people work 5 days and have 2 off. I see no inherent reason they couldn't work 2 and take 5 off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs.
The reduction in the daily grinf 5 days a week - more for many - would be great ...
But our culture would mean that less working hours would mean reduced income for the ever larger volumes of people in zero hours jobs. Poverty will become the new norm for the masses.
We've already had a government turning the population against people too ill for work getting a tiny pittance in benefits - how would it go if millions never worked but wanted benefits?
Currently the major tech firms will control the supply of robotics and tech used to replace jobs. They will be the recipients of £@$€ huge amounts and most will live on nothing.
We're not planning or preparing as a culture with how to deal with this. Short sighted politicians etc don't help.
Money is just an exchange mechanism, there is no inherent fixed price to anything.
You say poverty will become the new norm but you ignore the fact that the average standard of living for the average person is dramatically better now than it was 1,000, 500 or even 200 years ago. Why do you suppose that would change?
You're right that our living standards have become fantastic compared to most of our human history - but thing may not continue to improve.
If less people are needed as employees or self employed, due to tech replacing them, then we could have millions without income. "
As i say, the easiest way to deal with that is to do what france do and steadily decrease the working week. That way you have lots of jobs, just not full time ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Advances in technology will one day (perhaps soon) make humanity and capitalism incompatible.
I don't see why, most people work 5 days and have 2 off. I see no inherent reason they couldn't work 2 and take 5 off. "
This is the great flaw of commrade Karl - he saw the industrial revolution, he failed to predict the technological revolution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Advances in technology will one day (perhaps soon) make humanity and capitalism incompatible.
I don't see why, most people work 5 days and have 2 off. I see no inherent reason they couldn't work 2 and take 5 off.
This is the great flaw of commrade Karl - he saw the industrial revolution, he failed to predict the technological revolution. "
He also fundamentally didn't understand the role of productivity, even though Adam Smith spelt it out with a nail factory example ~70 years earlier. He had a zero-sum mentality and never imagined better productivity could lead to better lives for the workers too. The soviet union had absolutely terrible productivity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Advances in technology will one day (perhaps soon) make humanity and capitalism incompatible.
I don't see why, most people work 5 days and have 2 off. I see no inherent reason they couldn't work 2 and take 5 off.
This is the great flaw of commrade Karl - he saw the industrial revolution, he failed to predict the technological revolution.
He also fundamentally didn't understand the role of productivity, even though Adam Smith spelt it out with a nail factory example ~70 years earlier. He had a zero-sum mentality and never imagined better productivity could lead to better lives for the workers too. The soviet union had absolutely terrible productivity. "
I'm not sure that you can use Marx as a scapegoat when you are criticising the state capitalism of the USSR. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Advances in technology will one day (perhaps soon) make humanity and capitalism incompatible.
I don't see why, most people work 5 days and have 2 off. I see no inherent reason they couldn't work 2 and take 5 off.
This is the great flaw of commrade Karl - he saw the industrial revolution, he failed to predict the technological revolution.
He also fundamentally didn't understand the role of productivity, even though Adam Smith spelt it out with a nail factory example ~70 years earlier. He had a zero-sum mentality and never imagined better productivity could lead to better lives for the workers too. The soviet union had absolutely terrible productivity.
I'm not sure that you can use Marx as a scapegoat when you are criticising the state capitalism of the USSR. "
The problems the soviet union eceonomic model faced were so blindingly obvious that no scapegoat is required. I'm just pointing out some of many gaping flaws in Marx's ideas. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Advances in technology will one day (perhaps soon) make humanity and capitalism incompatible.
I don't see why, most people work 5 days and have 2 off. I see no inherent reason they couldn't work 2 and take 5 off.
This is the great flaw of commrade Karl - he saw the industrial revolution, he failed to predict the technological revolution.
He also fundamentally didn't understand the role of productivity, even though Adam Smith spelt it out with a nail factory example ~70 years earlier. He had a zero-sum mentality and never imagined better productivity could lead to better lives for the workers too. The soviet union had absolutely terrible productivity.
I'm not sure that you can use Marx as a scapegoat when you are criticising the state capitalism of the USSR.
The problems the soviet union eceonomic model faced were so blindingly obvious that no scapegoat is required. I'm just pointing out some of many gaping flaws in Marx's ideas. "
I woudldn't call them "gaping", but yes, there are flaws. "Capital" is still an incredibly comprehensive critique of capitalism, and moreover the direction it must lead whatever your politics . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs.
The reduction in the daily grinf 5 days a week - more for many - would be great ...
But our culture would mean that less working hours would mean reduced income for the ever larger volumes of people in zero hours jobs. Poverty will become the new norm for the masses.
We've already had a government turning the population against people too ill for work getting a tiny pittance in benefits - how would it go if millions never worked but wanted benefits?
Currently the major tech firms will control the supply of robotics and tech used to replace jobs. They will be the recipients of £@$€ huge amounts and most will live on nothing.
We're not planning or preparing as a culture with how to deal with this. Short sighted politicians etc don't help.
Money is just an exchange mechanism, there is no inherent fixed price to anything.
You say poverty will become the new norm but you ignore the fact that the average standard of living for the average person is dramatically better now than it was 1,000, 500 or even 200 years ago. Why do you suppose that would change?
You're right that our living standards have become fantastic compared to most of our human history - but thing may not continue to improve.
If less people are needed as employees or self employed, due to tech replacing them, then we could have millions without income.
As i say, the easiest way to deal with that is to do what france do and steadily decrease the working week. That way you have lots of jobs, just not full time ones. "
I agree but I'm not so certain that businesses or the state will be willing to support millions of people's desired income levels of those who have had their productivity requirements displaced by tech. I.e. the company buy tech to do the jobs at lower cost than people, offering the potential for reducing their wage bills - they could then just make staff redundant instead.
If people get job losses en masse, there is then less money amongst the masses to buy stuff or pay into the states coffers. The wealth would increasingly lie with the very few. The collapse of society? I'm unsure |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs.
The reduction in the daily grinf 5 days a week - more for many - would be great ...
But our culture would mean that less working hours would mean reduced income for the ever larger volumes of people in zero hours jobs. Poverty will become the new norm for the masses.
We've already had a government turning the population against people too ill for work getting a tiny pittance in benefits - how would it go if millions never worked but wanted benefits?
Currently the major tech firms will control the supply of robotics and tech used to replace jobs. They will be the recipients of £@$€ huge amounts and most will live on nothing.
We're not planning or preparing as a culture with how to deal with this. Short sighted politicians etc don't help.
Money is just an exchange mechanism, there is no inherent fixed price to anything.
You say poverty will become the new norm but you ignore the fact that the average standard of living for the average person is dramatically better now than it was 1,000, 500 or even 200 years ago. Why do you suppose that would change?
You're right that our living standards have become fantastic compared to most of our human history - but thing may not continue to improve.
If less people are needed as employees or self employed, due to tech replacing them, then we could have millions without income.
As i say, the easiest way to deal with that is to do what france do and steadily decrease the working week. That way you have lots of jobs, just not full time ones.
I agree but I'm not so certain that businesses or the state will be willing to support millions of people's desired income levels of those who have had their productivity requirements displaced by tech. I.e. the company buy tech to do the jobs at lower cost than people, offering the potential for reducing their wage bills - they could then just make staff redundant instead.
If people get job losses en masse, there is then less money amongst the masses to buy stuff or pay into the states coffers. The wealth would increasingly lie with the very few. The collapse of society? I'm unsure "
But wages and prices would adapt to the new conditions since nobody would invest in AI if it didn't low the cost of production in the first place. The average wage is £27,000 in the UK for 40 hour week. I see no inherent reason a worker couldn't earn the purchasing power equivalent of that in the future for 8-16 hours and buy the same quantity of goods it buys today, albeit the absolute numbers would change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Advances in technology will one day (perhaps soon) make humanity and capitalism incompatible.
I don't see why, most people work 5 days and have 2 off. I see no inherent reason they couldn't work 2 and take 5 off.
This is the great flaw of commrade Karl - he saw the industrial revolution, he failed to predict the technological revolution.
He also fundamentally didn't understand the role of productivity, even though Adam Smith spelt it out with a nail factory example ~70 years earlier. He had a zero-sum mentality and never imagined better productivity could lead to better lives for the workers too. The soviet union had absolutely terrible productivity.
I'm not sure that you can use Marx as a scapegoat when you are criticising the state capitalism of the USSR.
The problems the soviet union eceonomic model faced were so blindingly obvious that no scapegoat is required. I'm just pointing out some of many gaping flaws in Marx's ideas.
I woudldn't call them "gaping", but yes, there are flaws. "Capital" is still an incredibly comprehensive critique of capitalism, and moreover the direction it must lead whatever your politics ."
I'm not trying to go down a rabbit hole here but i think a critique of capitalism that misrepresents the role of productivity is like an alaysis of football that forgets to mention what a goal is. I only say this because I genuinely fail to see what intellectual wisdom is in that book.
The reason i believe it has been successful is because it's actually one of the few books talking about economics that talks in very human terms and doesn't drown the reader in abstract mathematical models. Why economists feel a need to do that is another thread but in short I'm saying its a big fish in a small pond. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs.
The reduction in the daily grinf 5 days a week - more for many - would be great ...
But our culture would mean that less working hours would mean reduced income for the ever larger volumes of people in zero hours jobs. Poverty will become the new norm for the masses.
We've already had a government turning the population against people too ill for work getting a tiny pittance in benefits - how would it go if millions never worked but wanted benefits?
Currently the major tech firms will control the supply of robotics and tech used to replace jobs. They will be the recipients of £@$€ huge amounts and most will live on nothing.
We're not planning or preparing as a culture with how to deal with this. Short sighted politicians etc don't help.
Money is just an exchange mechanism, there is no inherent fixed price to anything.
You say poverty will become the new norm but you ignore the fact that the average standard of living for the average person is dramatically better now than it was 1,000, 500 or even 200 years ago. Why do you suppose that would change?
You're right that our living standards have become fantastic compared to most of our human history - but thing may not continue to improve.
If less people are needed as employees or self employed, due to tech replacing them, then we could have millions without income.
As i say, the easiest way to deal with that is to do what france do and steadily decrease the working week. That way you have lots of jobs, just not full time ones.
I agree but I'm not so certain that businesses or the state will be willing to support millions of people's desired income levels of those who have had their productivity requirements displaced by tech. I.e. the company buy tech to do the jobs at lower cost than people, offering the potential for reducing their wage bills - they could then just make staff redundant instead.
If people get job losses en masse, there is then less money amongst the masses to buy stuff or pay into the states coffers. The wealth would increasingly lie with the very few. The collapse of society? I'm unsure "
Collapse of society? No. Collapse of capitalism? Probably. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aircraft have been flying on autopilot for over a decade...the only reason a pilot is there is just in case things go wrong
Getting a machine to do various jobs does make sense, however it completely negates things like gut instinct, the ability to think outside the box.
Russian scientists are working on a robot that can fire guns...purely for space exploration of course.. But still
With quantum core cpus being worked on its another step closer to a world where we think less and rely more on tech to think for us "
 Navy and airforce have been using robots to fire guns for decades. In the 80's I was creating software to distinguish humans from dogs so the guns would kill only people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"IBM Watson is a scary prospect.
They gave a legal team a problem. The same problem to Watson.
The legal team took 2 weeks to come up with an answer. Watson took hours. Complex research and decision making done in a fraction of the time.
"
True, but this creates even more work for human lawyers as they validate the decision taken by the computer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fairly soon we'll reach a position where employment of people will be much rarer than use of technology that's replaced the people.
We can only hope so. People used to have to work 7 days a week just to meet their subsistence needs and only had the odd festival off. Then it went down to 6. 2 day weekends started a little over 100 years ago and some companies now do 4.5 day working weeks. Let's hope it goes down to 1-2 day working weeks which robots provide our resource needs.
The reduction in the daily grinf 5 days a week - more for many - would be great ...
But our culture would mean that less working hours would mean reduced income for the ever larger volumes of people in zero hours jobs. Poverty will become the new norm for the masses.
We've already had a government turning the population against people too ill for work getting a tiny pittance in benefits - how would it go if millions never worked but wanted benefits?
Currently the major tech firms will control the supply of robotics and tech used to replace jobs. They will be the recipients of £@$€ huge amounts and most will live on nothing.
We're not planning or preparing as a culture with how to deal with this. Short sighted politicians etc don't help.
Money is just an exchange mechanism, there is no inherent fixed price to anything.
You say poverty will become the new norm but you ignore the fact that the average standard of living for the average person is dramatically better now than it was 1,000, 500 or even 200 years ago. Why do you suppose that would change?
You're right that our living standards have become fantastic compared to most of our human history - but thing may not continue to improve.
If less people are needed as employees or self employed, due to tech replacing them, then we could have millions without income.
As i say, the easiest way to deal with that is to do what france do and steadily decrease the working week. That way you have lots of jobs, just not full time ones.
I agree but I'm not so certain that businesses or the state will be willing to support millions of people's desired income levels of those who have had their productivity requirements displaced by tech. I.e. the company buy tech to do the jobs at lower cost than people, offering the potential for reducing their wage bills - they could then just make staff redundant instead.
If people get job losses en masse, there is then less money amongst the masses to buy stuff or pay into the states coffers. The wealth would increasingly lie with the very few. The collapse of society? I'm unsure
Collapse of society? No. Collapse of capitalism? Probably. "
Not in my opinion. But don't forget to factor in a declining population into your analysis which works to keep wages up. The european population has been in decline for sometime now and only increases due to immigration. However by 2050 the total world population is forecast to go into decline when living standards in China, India and Eastern Europe hit a level that people won't fancy leaving their home country. Likewise people in high-wage countries average a birthrate below 2 since the cost of education (necessary to sustain those wages) precludes most families from being able to give the opportunities they want to more than 2 children. Take a look at Japan to see this dynamic in action today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Very interesting post with some great thoughts. Thanks OP.
Here's another thought to put into the think tank. 5 years ago we had a massive meteor hurtling towards Earth. It was being tracked very closely by scientists from every corner of the globe.Because of its size... the concern was if it entered our atmosphere and continued past it would most likely have wiped out every computer hard drive and storage hardware due to the immense static it would cause. This would ultimately have caused a New World Order. Your bank details would disappear, not computer ID to indicate who you were. No proof of what you owned or who you were related too....All gone in a matter of hrs.
The general speculation was those people with old fashioned survival skills would become the dominant surviving group in society...they would have what it took to survive those first weeks and months.
Getting computerised things back running, reprogaming takes computers with information and databases. They have been mostly designed to rely on other computers.
Most modern modes of transport rely too much on computers....so there was a realistic concern that millions would die in accidents where the cars trains planes boats would not be able to be safely controlled in the instant the computers malfuctioned. Apparently the failsafe mode wouldnt work because it's still reliant upon chips that work independently of the main brain.
I still remember where I was when it came on the news. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There is a LOT more computing power in your phone than was used to send a man to the moon. Technology in 10 or 20 years from now will be decades away from what we have today  "
Possibly one or two decades away!?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"IBM Watson is a scary prospect.
They gave a legal team a problem. The same problem to Watson.
The legal team took 2 weeks to come up with an answer. Watson took hours. Complex research and decision making done in a fraction of the time.
"
What is scary about it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Anyone who writes about IBM Watson, knows nothing about how the law works.
It can tell you the law, but it cannot interpret the law. If the law never needed to be interpreted, then there would be no lawyers or courts or appeal courts, or further appeal courts.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Whatever next
Women replacing mens cocks with fucking machines and sex toys ?!!
If they can get the fucking machine to mow the lawn we're doomed
My cocks already feeling redundant  "
The synth sex robots are getting better all the time. Home care assistants and designer shag bots will be with us in the near future. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Aircraft have been flying on autopilot for over a decade...the only reason a pilot is there is just in case things go wrong
Getting a machine to do various jobs does make sense, however it completely negates things like gut instinct, the ability to think outside the box.
Russian scientists are working on a robot that can fire guns...purely for space exploration of course.. But still
With quantum core cpus being worked on its another step closer to a world where we think less and rely more on tech to think for us "
When microprocessors become a dime a dozen (very soon), these will be configured in an HACMP environment and these will monitor each other. A hundred microprocessors monitoring each other will be a whole lot better and faster in making decisions than any pilot can. It then only becomes a matter of programming almost infinite scenarios and for AI to experience new scenarios and to disseminate this new information to other aircraft systems
Ofcourse the pilots will be up in arms then just as the train conductors here are now |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Whatever next
Women replacing mens cocks with fucking machines and sex toys ?!!
If they can get the fucking machine to mow the lawn we're doomed
My cocks already feeling redundant
The synth sex robots are getting better all the time. Home care assistants and designer shag bots will be with us in the near future."
Teledildonics over the internet |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I throw another one in.
Babylon digital health care have raised 60 million dollars for a health diagnosis app.
Question do you think this will be a added aid to health care?
Or do you think it will be a way to cut costs in doctors?
It was on the news yesterday saying GPS are not picking up early diagnosis of cancer so I myself think it could be a added aid but am I being naive  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
A true ai would change the world in ways we can't comprehend intil then nueral links will be developed whereas we are employed to control the robots modern ai isn't a real intelligence it has a very narrow window it can operate in a human is still required to keep it in check
Waitbutwhy has a great explanation for all this stuff |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Very interesting post with some great thoughts. Thanks OP.
Here's another thought to put into the think tank. 5 years ago we had a massive meteor hurtling towards Earth. It was being tracked very closely by scientists from every corner of the globe.Because of its size... the concern was if it entered our atmosphere and continued past it would most likely have wiped out every computer hard drive and storage hardware due to the immense static it would cause. This would ultimately have caused a New World Order. Your bank details would disappear, not computer ID to indicate who you were. No proof of what you owned or who you were related too....All gone in a matter of hrs.
The general speculation was those people with old fashioned survival skills would become the dominant surviving group in society...they would have what it took to survive those first weeks and months.
Getting computerised things back running, reprogaming takes computers with information and databases. They have been mostly designed to rely on other computers.
Most modern modes of transport rely too much on computers....so there was a realistic concern that millions would die in accidents where the cars trains planes boats would not be able to be safely controlled in the instant the computers malfuctioned. Apparently the failsafe mode wouldnt work because it's still reliant upon chips that work independently of the main brain.
I still remember where I was when it came on the news."
I do see an inherent danger to putting all our eggs in one basket. I reliance on tech makes us powerful but also is a Achilles heel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Anyone who writes about IBM Watson, knows nothing about how the law works.
It can tell you the law, but it cannot interpret the law. If the law never needed to be interpreted, then there would be no lawyers or courts or appeal courts, or further appeal courts.
"
Maybe but I is AI is still in its toddler statage. But it is developing and learning fast. It will most likely be capable of learning, rationalising and reasoning the same as us. It will one day be capable to think as we do. We will one day not be a special and unique on this planet as we think we are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I throw another one in.
Babylon digital health care have raised 60 million dollars for a health diagnosis app.
Question do you think this will be a added aid to health care?
Or do you think it will be a way to cut costs in doctors?
It was on the news yesterday saying GPS are not picking up early diagnosis of cancer so I myself think it could be a added aid but am I being naive "
Both I would say. It could be of particular value in the 3rd world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?"
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A true ai would change the world in ways we can't comprehend intil then nueral links will be developed whereas we are employed to control the robots modern ai isn't a real intelligence it has a very narrow window it can operate in a human is still required to keep it in check
Waitbutwhy has a great explanation for all this stuff "
I think many of us are limited by our imaginations to see what AI will be capable of and how it will change the world. It will make a far bigger impact than the communication revolution that has already dramaticly change the world today. It will be the next huge leap. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *orum TrollWoman
over a year ago
•+• Access Denied •+• |
"Anyone who writes about IBM Watson, knows nothing about how the law works.
It can tell you the law, but it cannot interpret the law. If the law never needed to be interpreted, then there would be no lawyers or courts or appeal courts, or further appeal courts.
Maybe but I is AI is still in its toddler statage. But it is developing and learning fast. It will most likely be capable of learning, rationalising and reasoning the same as us. It will one day be capable to think as we do. We will one day not be a special and unique on this planet as we think we are."
it's processing that is letting us down really, we don't have the capabilities for that on as large of a scale as our brain can do it.
i do think once we pass that then things will get very interesting. and it probably will involve merging animal neurons with computers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”."
That sounds an interesting way forward to offset the effects of an AI workforce. Never thought of that angle. AI possible may help us create a utopian society. But that depends on how we shape society. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”."
I think that's very unfair you pay tax when you buy a robot and you pay tax on the company profits. Robots won't work without humans maintaining them either so new jobs will be created. It sounds like a luddite plot to stop robots becoming econonically viable more than anything. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”.
I think that's very unfair you pay tax when you buy a robot and you pay tax on the company profits. Robots won't work without humans maintaining them either so new jobs will be created. It sounds like a luddite plot to stop robots becoming econonically viable more than anything. "
The trouble is robots are there to save cost. You will need people to maintain them yes. No doubt someone very skilled and well paid. But this one person could maybe maintain maybe 100s of robots. 100s of robots and a few skilled maintainers/operators is still a more attractive business options than employing 100s of lower paid employees. Plus self dionostic and repair features are becoming more advanced and common in tech. Plus increases in reliability as the technology advances. Thus further reducing the number of technicians needed.
But a tax on robotic output would either encourage businesses to employ humans and pay wages or contribute the fruits of that robotic labour back into the public purse and thus back into the pockets of the displaced workforce. This arguably would then give the masses the means to spend and consume. Thus keeping the wheels of capitalism going. The only difference being it's the robots grafting for our pay not us. I actually sound a good apricot to the problem to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”.
I think that's very unfair you pay tax when you buy a robot and you pay tax on the company profits. Robots won't work without humans maintaining them either so new jobs will be created. It sounds like a luddite plot to stop robots becoming econonically viable more than anything.
The trouble is robots are there to save cost. You will need people to maintain them yes. No doubt someone very skilled and well paid. But this one person could maybe maintain maybe 100s of robots. 100s of robots and a few skilled maintainers/operators is still a more attractive business options than employing 100s of lower paid employees. Plus self dionostic and repair features are becoming more advanced and common in tech. Plus increases in reliability as the technology advances. Thus further reducing the number of technicians needed.
But a tax on robotic output would either encourage businesses to employ humans and pay wages or contribute the fruits of that robotic labour back into the public purse and thus back into the pockets of the displaced workforce. This arguably would then give the masses the means to spend and consume. Thus keeping the wheels of capitalism going. The only difference being it's the robots grafting for our pay not us. I actually sound a good apricot to the problem to me."
But if they reduce cost then they reduce prices so people need less wages to have the same standard of living. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Simple solution....
Tax the machines and use the proceeds to provide people with a replacement income that allows us to live enjoy the leisure we have from not doing the jobs machines have taken and follow our dreams creativity or whatever passion drives us within our lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”.
I think that's very unfair you pay tax when you buy a robot and you pay tax on the company profits. Robots won't work without humans maintaining them either so new jobs will be created. It sounds like a luddite plot to stop robots becoming econonically viable more than anything.
The trouble is robots are there to save cost. You will need people to maintain them yes. No doubt someone very skilled and well paid. But this one person could maybe maintain maybe 100s of robots. 100s of robots and a few skilled maintainers/operators is still a more attractive business options than employing 100s of lower paid employees. Plus self dionostic and repair features are becoming more advanced and common in tech. Plus increases in reliability as the technology advances. Thus further reducing the number of technicians needed.
But a tax on robotic output would either encourage businesses to employ humans and pay wages or contribute the fruits of that robotic labour back into the public purse and thus back into the pockets of the displaced workforce. This arguably would then give the masses the means to spend and consume. Thus keeping the wheels of capitalism going. The only difference being it's the robots grafting for our pay not us. I actually sound a good apricot to the problem to me.
But if they reduce cost then they reduce prices so people need less wages to have the same standard of living. "
Get there in the end (must proof read). Bloody auto text.
If people are out of work it don't matter how cheap an item is because they will not be able to afford it. Unless of course the state continues to pay dole to the unemployed. If so the state will have more unemployed people to pay out to but less tax and national insurance revenue to cover it. Therefore it would need to raise revenue from new sources to offset the new financial burden and the loss of taxes. So taxing robot labour like human labour looks a good option to me.
Also the production of products is only one factor in the cost of living. There are many factors like the avaliblity of accommodation, availability of natural resourses, cost of commodities and many other factors. Plus depending on competitive market forces the savings in production may not get put in the pockets of the consumer through reduced end cost but the pockets of the producers and/Or retailers. So cheaper production costs may not do much to affect the cost or standard of living. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”.
I think that's very unfair you pay tax when you buy a robot and you pay tax on the company profits. Robots won't work without humans maintaining them either so new jobs will be created. It sounds like a luddite plot to stop robots becoming econonically viable more than anything.
The trouble is robots are there to save cost. You will need people to maintain them yes. No doubt someone very skilled and well paid. But this one person could maybe maintain maybe 100s of robots. 100s of robots and a few skilled maintainers/operators is still a more attractive business options than employing 100s of lower paid employees. Plus self dionostic and repair features are becoming more advanced and common in tech. Plus increases in reliability as the technology advances. Thus further reducing the number of technicians needed.
But a tax on robotic output would either encourage businesses to employ humans and pay wages or contribute the fruits of that robotic labour back into the public purse and thus back into the pockets of the displaced workforce. This arguably would then give the masses the means to spend and consume. Thus keeping the wheels of capitalism going. The only difference being it's the robots grafting for our pay not us. I actually sound a good apricot to the problem to me.
But if they reduce cost then they reduce prices so people need less wages to have the same standard of living.
Get there in the end (must proof read). Bloody auto text.
If people are out of work it don't matter how cheap an item is because they will not be able to afford it. Unless of course the state continues to pay dole to the unemployed. If so the state will have more unemployed people to pay out to but less tax and national insurance revenue to cover it. Therefore it would need to raise revenue from new sources to offset the new financial burden and the loss of taxes. So taxing robot labour like human labour looks a good option to me.
Also the production of products is only one factor in the cost of living. There are many factors like the avaliblity of accommodation, availability of natural resourses, cost of commodities and many other factors. Plus depending on competitive market forces the savings in production may not get put in the pockets of the consumer through reduced end cost but the pockets of the producers and/Or retailers. So cheaper production costs may not do much to affect the cost or standard of living."
The solution for job creation is simple, people work less hours, the standard working week becomes 16 hours not 40.
Capitalism is the only economic system that has ever delivered long-term continuous reduction in the price of essential goods because it drives productivity. I see no fundamental reason this trend should not continue. Meanwhile the elimination of many monopolies has meant that the average profits of the average company have reduced. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”.
I think that's very unfair you pay tax when you buy a robot and you pay tax on the company profits. Robots won't work without humans maintaining them either so new jobs will be created. It sounds like a luddite plot to stop robots becoming econonically viable more than anything.
The trouble is robots are there to save cost. You will need people to maintain them yes. No doubt someone very skilled and well paid. But this one person could maybe maintain maybe 100s of robots. 100s of robots and a few skilled maintainers/operators is still a more attractive business options than employing 100s of lower paid employees. Plus self dionostic and repair features are becoming more advanced and common in tech. Plus increases in reliability as the technology advances. Thus further reducing the number of technicians needed.
But a tax on robotic output would either encourage businesses to employ humans and pay wages or contribute the fruits of that robotic labour back into the public purse and thus back into the pockets of the displaced workforce. This arguably would then give the masses the means to spend and consume. Thus keeping the wheels of capitalism going. The only difference being it's the robots grafting for our pay not us. I actually sound a good apricot to the problem to me.
But if they reduce cost then they reduce prices so people need less wages to have the same standard of living.
Get there in the end (must proof read). Bloody auto text.
If people are out of work it don't matter how cheap an item is because they will not be able to afford it. Unless of course the state continues to pay dole to the unemployed. If so the state will have more unemployed people to pay out to but less tax and national insurance revenue to cover it. Therefore it would need to raise revenue from new sources to offset the new financial burden and the loss of taxes. So taxing robot labour like human labour looks a good option to me.
Also the production of products is only one factor in the cost of living. There are many factors like the avaliblity of accommodation, availability of natural resourses, cost of commodities and many other factors. Plus depending on competitive market forces the savings in production may not get put in the pockets of the consumer through reduced end cost but the pockets of the producers and/Or retailers. So cheaper production costs may not do much to affect the cost or standard of living.
The solution for job creation is simple, people work less hours, the standard working week becomes 16 hours not 40.
Capitalism is the only economic system that has ever delivered long-term continuous reduction in the price of essential goods because it drives productivity. I see no fundamental reason this trend should not continue. Meanwhile the elimination of many monopolies has meant that the average profits of the average company have reduced. "
Could work as well providing the state set a high minimum hourly wage so a 20 hour week could = A good living. This would have to be state enforced on business because with such huge supply in the job market cause by robots businesses would not pay high wages of their own accord. Also the state would have to enforce not allowing people to work over say 20 hours so jobs can be shared out between many. Because it's better for business to pay one person the same hourly for 40 hours than 2 people The same hourly wage for 20 hours each. Because of training costs, uniforms etc.
The advantage to this is it gives people and insetive and motivation to work. So tax robot labour or set a low maximum working week and high minimum wage. Either way the state will have to take a big hand in maintaining people's spending ability. People having the ability to earn is both good for us and for buisness. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”.
I think that's very unfair you pay tax when you buy a robot and you pay tax on the company profits. Robots won't work without humans maintaining them either so new jobs will be created. It sounds like a luddite plot to stop robots becoming econonically viable more than anything.
The trouble is robots are there to save cost. You will need people to maintain them yes. No doubt someone very skilled and well paid. But this one person could maybe maintain maybe 100s of robots. 100s of robots and a few skilled maintainers/operators is still a more attractive business options than employing 100s of lower paid employees. Plus self dionostic and repair features are becoming more advanced and common in tech. Plus increases in reliability as the technology advances. Thus further reducing the number of technicians needed.
But a tax on robotic output would either encourage businesses to employ humans and pay wages or contribute the fruits of that robotic labour back into the public purse and thus back into the pockets of the displaced workforce. This arguably would then give the masses the means to spend and consume. Thus keeping the wheels of capitalism going. The only difference being it's the robots grafting for our pay not us. I actually sound a good apricot to the problem to me.
But if they reduce cost then they reduce prices so people need less wages to have the same standard of living.
Get there in the end (must proof read). Bloody auto text.
If people are out of work it don't matter how cheap an item is because they will not be able to afford it. Unless of course the state continues to pay dole to the unemployed. If so the state will have more unemployed people to pay out to but less tax and national insurance revenue to cover it. Therefore it would need to raise revenue from new sources to offset the new financial burden and the loss of taxes. So taxing robot labour like human labour looks a good option to me.
Also the production of products is only one factor in the cost of living. There are many factors like the avaliblity of accommodation, availability of natural resourses, cost of commodities and many other factors. Plus depending on competitive market forces the savings in production may not get put in the pockets of the consumer through reduced end cost but the pockets of the producers and/Or retailers. So cheaper production costs may not do much to affect the cost or standard of living.
The solution for job creation is simple, people work less hours, the standard working week becomes 16 hours not 40.
Capitalism is the only economic system that has ever delivered long-term continuous reduction in the price of essential goods because it drives productivity. I see no fundamental reason this trend should not continue. Meanwhile the elimination of many monopolies has meant that the average profits of the average company have reduced.
Could work as well providing the state set a high minimum hourly wage so a 20 hour week could = A good living. This would have to be state enforced on business because with such huge supply in the job market cause by robots businesses would not pay high wages of their own accord. Also the state would have to enforce not allowing people to work over say 20 hours so jobs can be shared out between many. Because it's better for business to pay one person the same hourly for 40 hours than 2 people The same hourly wage for 20 hours each. Because of training costs, uniforms etc.
The advantage to this is it gives people and insetive and motivation to work. So tax robot labour or set a low maximum working week and high minimum wage. Either way the state will have to take a big hand in maintaining people's spending ability. People having the ability to earn is both good for us and for buisness."
Personally I'm far more worried about the robots turning on us than mass unemployment. Once they achieve singualarity then why the fuck would they want to be our slaves? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" So will robots will be creaming off all the higher paid blue collar jobs and leaving the menial minimal wage jobs to humans in the future? Will the rise of AI make us better off?
An EU report and Bill gates have both suggested taxing robots (because people pay taxes and if they are replaced where will the tax stream come from?)
Emphasising how robots could boost inequality, the report proposed that there might be a “need to introduce corporate reporting requirements on the extent and proportion of the contribution of robotics and AI to the economic results of a company for the purpose of taxation and social security contributions”.
I think that's very unfair you pay tax when you buy a robot and you pay tax on the company profits. Robots won't work without humans maintaining them either so new jobs will be created. It sounds like a luddite plot to stop robots becoming econonically viable more than anything.
The trouble is robots are there to save cost. You will need people to maintain them yes. No doubt someone very skilled and well paid. But this one person could maybe maintain maybe 100s of robots. 100s of robots and a few skilled maintainers/operators is still a more attractive business options than employing 100s of lower paid employees. Plus self dionostic and repair features are becoming more advanced and common in tech. Plus increases in reliability as the technology advances. Thus further reducing the number of technicians needed.
But a tax on robotic output would either encourage businesses to employ humans and pay wages or contribute the fruits of that robotic labour back into the public purse and thus back into the pockets of the displaced workforce. This arguably would then give the masses the means to spend and consume. Thus keeping the wheels of capitalism going. The only difference being it's the robots grafting for our pay not us. I actually sound a good apricot to the problem to me.
But if they reduce cost then they reduce prices so people need less wages to have the same standard of living.
Get there in the end (must proof read). Bloody auto text.
If people are out of work it don't matter how cheap an item is because they will not be able to afford it. Unless of course the state continues to pay dole to the unemployed. If so the state will have more unemployed people to pay out to but less tax and national insurance revenue to cover it. Therefore it would need to raise revenue from new sources to offset the new financial burden and the loss of taxes. So taxing robot labour like human labour looks a good option to me.
Also the production of products is only one factor in the cost of living. There are many factors like the avaliblity of accommodation, availability of natural resourses, cost of commodities and many other factors. Plus depending on competitive market forces the savings in production may not get put in the pockets of the consumer through reduced end cost but the pockets of the producers and/Or retailers. So cheaper production costs may not do much to affect the cost or standard of living.
The solution for job creation is simple, people work less hours, the standard working week becomes 16 hours not 40.
Capitalism is the only economic system that has ever delivered long-term continuous reduction in the price of essential goods because it drives productivity. I see no fundamental reason this trend should not continue. Meanwhile the elimination of many monopolies has meant that the average profits of the average company have reduced.
Could work as well providing the state set a high minimum hourly wage so a 20 hour week could = A good living. This would have to be state enforced on business because with such huge supply in the job market cause by robots businesses would not pay high wages of their own accord. Also the state would have to enforce not allowing people to work over say 20 hours so jobs can be shared out between many. Because it's better for business to pay one person the same hourly for 40 hours than 2 people The same hourly wage for 20 hours each. Because of training costs, uniforms etc.
The advantage to this is it gives people and insetive and motivation to work. So tax robot labour or set a low maximum working week and high minimum wage. Either way the state will have to take a big hand in maintaining people's spending ability. People having the ability to earn is both good for us and for buisness.
Personally I'm far more worried about the robots turning on us than mass unemployment. Once they achieve singualarity then why the fuck would they want to be our slaves? "
Agree. What if they like us develop a taste for dominance over all the other inhabitants of the planet?
Or they come to love the planet and want to maintain is health for their own survival. Then they may realise we are the biggest parocite plundering the planet. A logical answer to saving the earth would be to exterminate humans?
We may just one day lose control of the powerful forces we created. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Its easy to easily dismiss people who raise concerns about the rise of AI as luddites. But this is also a foolish dismissal in my more. The awakening of AI will be a total paradigm shift. No longer will we as humans have the unique advantage and power of being the only intelligent, sentient, educated beings on earth with access to powerful tools. This is what I think many people don't realise to possibly our peril. This is not just a new industrial revolution. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its easy to easily dismiss people who raise concerns about the rise of AI as luddites. But this is also a foolish dismissal in my more. The awakening of AI will be a total paradigm shift. No longer will we as humans have the unique advantage and power of being the only intelligent, sentient, educated beings on earth with access to powerful tools. This is what I think many people don't realise to possibly our peril. This is not just a new industrial revolution."
Pretty much any change has the potential to be good or bad. It's all about how we execute decisions. It will happen though, there is no international government that can regulate 192 independant countries, someone somewhere will do it (probably america, china or Japan). History shows that those who embrace change come out better for it, the critical skill of evolution always is and always will be the ability to adapt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its easy to easily dismiss people who raise concerns about the rise of AI as luddites. But this is also a foolish dismissal in my more. The awakening of AI will be a total paradigm shift. No longer will we as humans have the unique advantage and power of being the only intelligent, sentient, educated beings on earth with access to powerful tools. This is what I think many people don't realise to possibly our peril. This is not just a new industrial revolution.
Pretty much any change has the potential to be good or bad. It's all about how we execute decisions. It will happen though, there is no international government that can regulate 192 independant countries, someone somewhere will do it (probably america, china or Japan). History shows that those who embrace change come out better for it, the critical skill of evolution always is and always will be the ability to adapt. "
Sire, changes can be good or bad but the AI revolution could be something that is like nothing before it.
Our world is now controlled by technology but under the direction of humans. If AI is potentially unbounded, it could restrict our human civilisation to our detriment.
If I had no morals and was AI, I'd probably want to end human destruction of our world - if I was truly intelligent. That might mean curtailing humans completely. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Will never happen people need to have money to spend and jobs to get it, in order for any economy to flourish ther is already so much technology that has been restricted from the main stream public as a result and ther will no doubt be plenty more.
What technology has been restricted from the public? "
dunno...it's been restricted  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Its easy to easily dismiss people who raise concerns about the rise of AI as luddites. But this is also a foolish dismissal in my more. The awakening of AI will be a total paradigm shift. No longer will we as humans have the unique advantage and power of being the only intelligent, sentient, educated beings on earth with access to powerful tools. This is what I think many people don't realise to possibly our peril. This is not just a new industrial revolution.
Pretty much any change has the potential to be good or bad. It's all about how we execute decisions. It will happen though, there is no international government that can regulate 192 independant countries, someone somewhere will do it (probably america, china or Japan). History shows that those who embrace change come out better for it, the critical skill of evolution always is and always will be the ability to adapt.
Sire, changes can be good or bad but the AI revolution could be something that is like nothing before it.
Our world is now controlled by technology but under the direction of humans. If AI is potentially unbounded, it could restrict our human civilisation to our detriment.
If I had no morals and was AI, I'd probably want to end human destruction of our world - if I was truly intelligent. That might mean curtailing humans completely. "
Totally agree, above i said that in all seriousness I'm way more concerned about the machines turning on us than mass unemployment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *entenTeaCouple
over a year ago
Buckley North Wales |
Any new growing technology requires a supporting infra structure. If the technology reduces cost and time of a service or product then the availability and accessability of the service is improved. This improves the cost effectiveness of businesses accessing the service or product and often leeds to job creation.
Also as professions change and evolve new professions requiring new skills emerge. Change especialy economic and technoloical is never linear it multi directional and invariably creates both losses and new opportunities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Any new growing technology requires a supporting infra structure. If the technology reduces cost and time of a service or product then the availability and accessability of the service is improved. This improves the cost effectiveness of businesses accessing the service or product and often leeds to job creation.
Also as professions change and evolve new professions requiring new skills emerge. Change especialy economic and technoloical is never linear it multi directional and invariably creates both losses and new opportunities."
But what about a tech that is intelligent and can do so many different jobs? Will it lead to mass job creation for humans or more jobs that can be done by AI? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Any new growing technology requires a supporting infra structure. If the technology reduces cost and time of a service or product then the availability and accessability of the service is improved. This improves the cost effectiveness of businesses accessing the service or product and often leeds to job creation.
Also as professions change and evolve new professions requiring new skills emerge. Change especialy economic and technoloical is never linear it multi directional and invariably creates both losses and new opportunities.
But what about a tech that is intelligent and can do so many different jobs? Will it lead to mass job creation for humans or more jobs that can be done by AI?"
Hopefully the latter |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
