Lurker > darkknight109

Metalsonic66 posted...

Sequels > Prequels

In other news, water is wet.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

Is it very possible, though. Just because I cant prove something doesnt mean its not possible. We cant prove aliens, but its possible, for example.

If you're putting your theory on the same level as aliens, you've pretty much spelled out how realistic a concern it is.

I mean, I could say that it's possible that all humans that are behind the wheel of a car could start randomly exploding a few years from now. It's "possible", after all, and you can't prove that it's not. That doesn't make it a realistic concern.

If you can't come up with something more concrete than leaning on the Devil's Proof, you're going to have to concede this point.

LinkPizza posted...

It is applicable to humans... But the cars are supposed to be better, yeah?

Yes. And they are, as I pointed out in the exact paragraph you quoted as part of this response.

LinkPizza posted...

Its happened with humans before, so it does happen

Sure, it's happened with humans. It hasn't happened with AI, though.

And when it has happened with humans, they haven't all been equipped with 360 degree vision, sensors, and cameras that can be used by law enforcement afterwards to work out what happened.

LinkPizza posted...

Yes. I think they have to be perfect, or why use them? Id rather die by my own hand than by something out of my control like a self-driving vehicles.

I'd rather not die by your hand, though, and that's the difference. Knowing nothing else about you, if I had to choose between you or a self-driving vehicle, I'd choose the self-driving vehicle because it's probably a better driver.

Don't take it personally, I feel that way about pretty much everyone. The average driver is terrible, whereas the average self-driving vehicle is orders of magnitude safer.

You don't use self-driving vehicles because they're perfect, you use them because they're safer than the alternative. I would think that would be self-evident.

LinkPizza posted...

And you say that we have new things to talk about

When did I say that?

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. It was a long conversation. I remember our conversation very well to a degree. I would think you would remember some stuff

Sorry, but I don't keep four-year-old internet debates in my memory for ready reference. If you do, I'm duly impressed, but if you want to talk about a conversation that old, you'll have to provide some actual quotes.

LinkPizza posted...

Which is why I dont think they are thinking about people in wheelchairs.

Again, it is literally illegal to do this. A private entity might get away with this, but a government would not - especially not in an industry that counts the disabled as regular customers.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

Also, I dont want my game to always give me what I desired. Some of the best things are when games do something so unpredictable and make you mad. Or feel despair, in some cases

And an AI could very much do that as well.

Again, anything a human programmer can do, an AI of sufficient skill would be able to do just as well.

LinkPizza posted...

It probably will for many people, though

Then those people don't have to write or create; they can go do something else that they find fulfilling instead and let other people and/or the AI take care of it.

LinkPizza posted...

No. I wont. I cant because I dont know anything about you, or have seen others things you have done. Or have proof. Many of them had talked about other things (maybe other videos), or had go to school for it. Ill wait until I can see my BF and talk to him about it

As for mentioning it, Im mentioning what the people in the video said. Who I do trust that have a backing in music. So, it wasnt without someone who knew music

So do you listen to music because other people say that it's high-quality? Or do you listen to it because you personally think it sounds good?

The overwhelming majority of the population will say that it's the latter. They don't really care if the music is formulaic (which even most popular human-written music today is); they just care that it sounds good to them.

An AI is capable of replicating that today. And it's continually improving.

LinkPizza posted...

Target and Wal-mart? Yeah. They would have more people using them. So they should get more of them Hence why its weird that they dont have more. And there has to be a good reason

My guess is because they've hit the cost-efficiency curve. After all, even if they fully-automated checkout, they need people in the store to do other things (stock shelves, man delis, clean up messes, open locked cabinets for higher-priced items, answer customer questions, and so on) - those aren't full time jobs, so having those people man the tills when those tasks aren't required is a way to keep those people busy and productive when there's nothing else for them to do.

Some customers, such as the disabled, also can't readily make use of the current generation of self-checkout machines, so human alternatives are still required.

That won't last forever, though. There's already experimental designs on fully automatic stores that will simply automatically detect what you're taking from the store and debit your credit card as you walk out, no interaction from you required. Those sorts of techs aren't ready for prime time yet, but those sorts of issues are already being looked at.

And, as you already pointed out, retailers are looking at how to automate those other tasks I just mentioned as well. We're already seeing a shade of this with Amazon's automated warehouses. The day may come where, instead of walking into a grocery store, you simply go to a website, order the things you want, and a robot delivers it to your door a few minutes later.

LinkPizza posted...

Really? When?

Well, you do it again in two sentences, so, again, I'm not sure why you're still insisting on arguing the point.

LinkPizza posted...

Except its not in the long run.

So? Not all customers or all businesses have the luxury of worrying about "the long run" - some just need a cheap solution now and don't care if it eventually has a shorter shelf life, because they'll replace it with the next cheapest solution when it eventually dies.

If you don't like the Lamborghini example, ask yourself why anyone would ever buy a used Honda Civic instead of a new one. After all, the used one won't last as long and will be harder to find parts for in the long run. Yet there's still a booming trade in used vehicles. Why?

Because they're cheaper. Because low up-front costs sometimes justify higher back-end costs. If you need a car now and simply don't have the money to plunk down on the newest, shiniest model, you get what your budget will allow.

People don't decide to live in rental houses instead of buying because it's a good decision financially; people do it because they don't have the money for a downpayment on a mortgage and need a roof over their head.

LinkPizza posted...

Of you getting sleepy, but not the other person.

Any visual sign significant enough for a person to pick up on that another driver is falling asleep is something that an AI will be able to just as easily identify. As that tech shows, they can already pick up incredibly subtle signs of falling asleep that a person in the same vehicle would miss; they are just as capable of doing that with other people's vehicles as well. Not to mention, a semi-autonomous vehicle (i.e. one that still has a manual driver) could signal other autonomous cars and say, "Hey, my driver is falling asleep/appears to be unconscious/may be in medical distress, watch out!", something that humans could not do.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

Im still confused why people think everything will be free, tbh

Because robots don't need to be paid because - as I've said ad nauseum - money is a measurement of human labour.

When you mow the lawn, do you cut a cheque to your lawnmower at the end of it? When you rake up leaves, do you give your rake $20? Of course not - those are tools, they don't need to be paid.

What about a vacuum cleaner? You probably don't pay that either. But, of course, you still have to do the vacuuming, so it takes some labour from you (and if you had to get someone else to do it, you'd need to pay them for their time). But what if we made a robotic vacuum that would do all the cleaning for you? We could call it... I don't know, a "Vroomba" or something catchy like that. This "Vroomba" could do all the vacuuming for you, no labour on your part required. Would you pay it? I don't think you would.

But you'd still have to pay *for* it, right? And you'd still have to pay to replace it or fix it if it gets damaged, right? Well, what would happen if we had robots that could build you new Roombas for free and recycle the old ones when they get too damaged to continue? You'd have free vacuuming for life, with nary a bill to be paid!

Now take that and apply it to the entirety of all jobs everywhere and you'll see why I'm saying that everything in a fully automated world effectively has zero cost.

LinkPizza posted...

Even playing against themselves, they would have to know the rules.

Well, obviously - I thought that much was self-evident.

That said, just because a program knows *how* to play chess doesn't mean it knows how to play it *well*. That's where the self-teaching AI comes into play.

LinkPizza posted...

So, I was right when I said limited amount of moves. Theres still a finite amount of moves you can make.

I'm not sure you appreciate the sheer scale of the example I just gave you.

The number of potential moves in Go are so high they may as well be limitless. By the 30th move in the game, there are 1.5x10^76 different combinations that could be played. For reference, there are an estimated 10^21 stars in the observable universe. If you could record each combination on a single byte of data, you could use every single piece of digital storage in the entire world (computers, servers, phones, hard drives, etc.) and you would not only not have enough data to store the resultant database, you wouldn't even have scratched the surface. The total estimated computer storage space in the world is 300 exabytes, or 300 x 10^18 bytes. If you could compress the entire world's data storage power - all 300 exabytes - down to a single byte and then build a new data network of 300 exabytes of those new bytes... it still wouldn't be enough. You would need to do that four times - a world-network of world-networks of world-networks of world-networks to have enough storage space to store every permutation and combination. For reference, if you could somehow use a single atom to store a game of Go up to that point, you would use up somewhere between 0.01% and 1% of all of the atoms in the entire observable universe writing out all the possible combinations.

That's all for thirty moves. The average game is over 200 moves (which creates a number of potential combinations so high that Microsoft Excel literally just returns an overflow error when I tried to calculate it).

You see why I pointed out that this was not a game that an AI could solve with brute force?

LinkPizza posted...

And depending on how they play, they could very easily predict an opponents moves. So, no. I dont actually see a problem with what I said.

OK, person who knows nothing about Go, how exactly would an AI very easily predict an opponent's moves? I'm very interested in your answer, given that this was a problem the best computer scientists in the world couldn't solve until ~5 years ago.

LinkPizza posted...

But some are. Or different enough that people may not have played them before.

And why would an AI not be able to similarly create these new games?

LinkPizza posted...

But it probably wouldnt make the mistakes in the first place. To get a positive response, you would first need to make the mistake.

Which an AI that has studied historical human games would potentially do.

LinkPizza posted...

The other problem is that I dont know if mistakes that were made on purpose are as funny.

Goat Simulator was a game made on that premise and it did pretty well for itself.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

@LinkPizza

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, if there are certain things people do, many may want to be compensated in some forms.

If people want compensation, they'll need to do it better than an AI.

In a fully automated future, there's nothing they can do that will be better than an AI.

LinkPizza posted...

And money can (and will) exist because we will still need currency or some sort for many things. For example, buying and selling land. And animals for things like farming, since they are 3D printed. Plus, if there are certain things people do, many may want to be compensated in some forms. And even if you could make anything you wanted, you would need the materials to do so. And those materials would most likely cost money (which this already happens)Not to mention things that may require finite resources. They cant just give all those out for free And restricting those means that we wouldnt be able to just make what we want when we want

Congratulations, you've caught up to where I was when I started this side tangent.

You've struck upon the fact that there's a fundamental issue, which is that there is still scarcity of some things (land and limited raw materials), which necessitates some form of exchange. However, you still haven't realized that without the ability for humans to operate a job market (why would anyone hire you for work when they can get a robot that will do the job better and without demanding a wage?), there is no way to earn money and, therefore, no way for money to exist as a tool of exchange.

This is one of those fundamental problems I've pointed out that we need to solve.

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. But wed have to program them to do that first. Because even if they can learn, theyd have to learn from something else. And wed probably start making them before the AI could learn how to make them.

This is actually quite incorrect. AI, even today, program themselves better than we can. We don't actually know how the most advanced AI's programming works, because it was the result of a self-programming process that produced an incredibly complex result that no programmer in the world can replicate.

As a very simplistic example, let's say you were training an image-recognition program to identify whether a picture contains a cat or not. Trying to program what a "cat" is into an AI is an exercise in futility, because it is almost impossible to do manually. Instead, you get an AI to do it instead (which seems counter-intuitive, since if you can't tell a program what a cat is, how can you tell an AI to make you a program that can tell what a cat is, but it actually does work). The AI takes an image recognition program and basically continually modifies its parameters while testing it against millions of calibration images where it is already known if they contain cats or not. Once it fine-tunes the program to the point where it can correctly identify the cats in each calibration image, it then collects new data to use as test data (CAPTCHAs are frequently used for this purpose) to see if the program works on non-control data. It iterates this process over and over until it can flawlessly distinguish what is and isn't a cat.

Hence, the AI succeeds in making a program that is difficult-to-impossible for a human to make. The same is true of, say, chess-playing robots (how do you program an AI to outsmart a grandmaster when you yourself are not a grandmaster?) or music-creating robots (how do you program an AI to create music if you aren't musically inclined yourself?) or, really, almost any AI.

LinkPizza posted...

It's something that would need to be perfect every time, though. While also being somewhat fast.

They don't have to be perfect every time, though, because humans aren't perfect every time.

Heck, they technically don't even have to be as good as us *or* as fast as us. A robot that does things half as quickly and half as accurately as a human is still cost effective if it's 1/10th the cost. To management that only cares about dollars and cents, they'll happily make that trade because it puts more money in their pockets.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially considering that I believe the self-driving ones go slower than normal buses (based on the videos I saw), and will probably have a little trouble keeping up with the routes.

Self-driving vehicles can go as fast as you want them to. Their reaction times are far, far faster than even the best humans. You'll hit the limits of the vehicle before you hit the limits of the AI driving it.

Self-driving cars tend to go slower than humans on the road because they obey the speed limit, where most humans don't, and drive in a very accommodating, non-aggressive manner, where many humans don't.

LinkPizza posted...

As for cost efficiency, that means we wont see them for a while, meaning most buses wont be fully autonomous (unless they dont care about the handicapped population).

I never said this was happening tomorrow. But the writing is on the wall and those fully automated vehicles are going to be taking over faster than you think.

LinkPizza posted...

I still see a never ending line or automation, though. Thats where the problem is.

How? I literally pointed out how you do this with a finite number of automatons - as many or as few as you like.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

If you go with something cheaper and older, itll be less. But why would they install the older model that will be outdated in stores.

Because it's cheaper. You literally just stated the reason yourself.

Asking "Why would you buy an iPhone 6 when there's a whatever-the-latest-iPhone-available-now right next to it on the shelf?" is a bit like asking, "Why would you buy a Honda Civic when you could just go down to your local Lamborghini dealer and buy yourself a Huracan?"

LinkPizza posted...

Except I dont think theyll recognize all that all the time. I think they are mostly sensing the objects around to see when to stop or steer away. But I dont see them seeing a person looking a little sleepy and then honking to give them a shock to wake up, and maybe pull over. And thats if it notices them nodding off. Because it could be someone who looks awake, but is sleep. Or they could think someone who head is all the way back on the headrest is asleep, when they just sit like that

There are literally car technologies today that will warn you if it detects signs of you getting sleepy. Those signs are as subtle as taking too long to blink or breathing in a way that suggests you're falling asleep.

This is a really bad example for you to pick, because we're not even talking hypothetical tech right now. Here's an NYT article on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/automobiles/wheels/drowsy-driving-technology.html

LinkPizza posted...

The theory is very possible, though.

It's not and you've literally just admitted you can't prove it or even support it with any sort of exercise or analysis that's been done to date. You're literally just making up things that have no basis in reality. It's pointless to continue this particular thread of the discussion, because you are now firmly in the realm of fantasy, not reality.

LinkPizza posted...

Yes. It is. But the accident may not happen immediately after they steer to avoid. It could have a couple of seconds before it happens. And because the car that caused it wasnt hit, it may not know that it was the car that caused the accident. The human may not be paying attention. Or was so focus on what almost happened that he doesnt know (or doesnt know that (s)he caused) an accident somewhere else. It happens fast, but it might not know if its far away enough. Well, it might know about the accident, but not that it caused it. Its also a problem if a human was the one that was hit by a self-driving car that was trying to avoid getting hit. Because it could be a mix of humans and self-driving vehicles on the road together. And humans do leave, but we would want the AI to be better. If they arent, then they start to become kind of useless

Literally everything you just stated is every bit as applicable for humans as AI. Moreso, honestly, given that humans don't have constant 360 degree vision and perfect attention to the road around it.

And we've already been over that AI *are* better in this area. They have cameras and sensors onboard that can pick up what happened and who is at fault far more reliably than a human can. The fact that you've had to contort yourself to concoct an incredibly unlikely scenario wherein a human and an AI are on equal ground - not even where an AI is inferior, but just where it is on equal ground with a human - shows how much better AI are than humans in terms of their behaviour and capabilities regarding accidents.

You're couching it in different language, but your argument is essentially that AI have to be perfect or else they're not worth it. That's not the case - they just need to be better than us. Not even in everything, but better overall. And they are - they're less prone to get into accidents, they don't break the law, they don't drive drunk, and they don't get distracted or sleepy while driving. That alone puts them worlds ahead of humans.

LinkPizza posted...

The topic was from 3 years ago.

If it's from that long ago, why are you still expecting me to remember it in detail?

There's enough to talk about in this topic without dragging up a years-old discussion.

LinkPizza posted...

Because its fit what they want, or think they need. Whats sad it nobody seems to be thinking about people in wheelchairs.

Of course they're thinking about people in wheelchairs - that's literally part of urban planning. You can't *not* think about people in wheelchairs, because that is big-time illegal and opening yourself up to major liability. People with disabilities are entitled to the same level of service as an able-bodied person and are allowed to sue if they do not receive it.

...and yet, the self-driving buses are here and rolling, which tells me they've already come to that bridge and crossed it successfully, because no city would ever willingly open themselves up to that level of liability if they hadn't.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

And I know nothing about Go. There is a person here who plays, but Ive never taken an interest in it. And an AI could easily predict an opponents move. Since I believe there is still a limited amount of moves one could make.

If you know nothing about Go, maybe don't make sweeping statements like "an AI could easily predict an opponent's move", because that's completely wrong when it comes to Go.

In the first two moves of Go alone (i.e. each player placing their first stone), there are 129,960 different combinations that could result. If each player has placed two stones, there are 16,702,719,120 different combinations. The average Go game is 211 moves. See the problem?

That's one of the issues that AIs had - until very recently, there were simply too many possible combinations of moves for them to "brute force" (and even now, "brute forcing" is not how an AI learns and plays Go).

LinkPizza posted...

Not all of them are.

Yes, all of them. All of them are created through humans parsing and interpreting data, the same way AI do. We're just better at it (for now), but there's no reason AI could not be trained to mimic our data input abilities and similarly turn out games.

LinkPizza posted...

That being said, something I do like about human developed games are certain glitches that get left in. Or ways to become overpowered when it shouldnt be possible. Those can be pretty funny. I feel AI wouldnt make those mistakes

It would if it got a positive response from humans.

AI, at its current level, doesn't interpret "right" or "wrong", it just interprets "desired response" from "undesired response". If a glitch or unbalanced gameplay mechanism is something that humans perceive as "fun", the AI would be conditioned to include those. We even see this in AI music, where it can generate slightly out-of-tune songs, rather than perfect ones, because it's learned that that's more "realistic."

LinkPizza posted...

No one wants to do things without compensation. Thats what I believe.

Yet you're actively disproving it. You're posting lengthy posts in this topic and no one's paying you for it. Why? Presumably because you consider this a good way to pass the time.

I've written articles and novellas before - some on this very site - without being paid. It's the same sort of thing a professional writer does (and, indeed, similar but in subject manner to the reports I write and *do* get paid for), but I'm perfectly content doing it without compensation because I don't need to be paid for it and I get contentment and satisfaction merely through the act of creating and sharing it with others. That won't change as automation continues.

LinkPizza posted...

Sorry. I should have said I dont know enough about music to say anything about it. When Ive watched reviews on music made them online, it would usually have somebody who knows more about music that was talking about it

I'm a classically-trained concert-level pianist (though I haven't played in years), so take my word for it - what the better AI musicbots produce at this point is pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing.

And the fact that you - someone without a major backing in music - couldn't immediately jump up and say, "That sounds awful/fake/like a machine made it" is more or less proof positive that it's doing its job. Even if the best musical ears could still tell it was a robot making it... it's still enough to fool 99.99% of the population.

LinkPizza posted...

Sure. For those places. For places like Wal-Mart and Target that have rows of them, theyd be fine.

And you'll note that those places are the ones most likely to have self-serve checkout.

LinkPizza posted...

Probably not all stores. But many are under a parent company who might have done the research for them.

And many more are not. Which you've already conceded, so I don't know why you're still trying to argue this point.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

And what two points am I jumping between

Whether you want to talk about a fully automated future or a partially-automated future, because those are two very different topics.

For instance, money won't (and can't) exist in a fully automated future, but it absolutely can and will in a partially-automated future. You can't just randomly flip between them on one point.

LinkPizza posted...

They actually do. The same program for driving a self-driving car isnt the same for self-checkout. And neither are the same for diagnosing patients. And being built for something isnt just the program, but the actual machine itself.

Most of which can be solved by an AI capable of designing and building other AI.

It's also worth noting that AI can also network more effectively than humans ever will. What one AI learns it can pass on to all the rest.

LinkPizza posted...

As for the bus seats, we still dont have anything like that, though. And thats still hypothetically moving someone to the spot and strapping them in. But nothing like that is out there yet.

Honestly, for a robot that's a pretty simple task. I can guarantee you there are robots fully capable of doing that job in existence *today*. They're nowhere near cost-efficient at the moment, which is why you're not seeing them used, but, as mentioned, costs come down pretty quickly...

LinkPizza posted...

Also, before we have robots performing multiple tasks, we should probably start at one.

We already did - they've been building cars for nearly four decades now and put factory workers out of business by being more cost-effective than them. We passed single-use robots a long, long, LOOONG time ago now. That is positively ancient tech in this day and age.

Even multi-task robots are pretty old. Learning robots are the new kid on the block.

LinkPizza posted...

Theres also the whole watching the automations thing. I feel people would eventually have to. Automations will eventually degrade over time. And even if you have automation watch automation for degrading, those could also degrade. Eventually, you have a never ending line of automation watching automation, and possibly all degrading or whatever

You're thinking way too linearly.

Automaton A doesn't just watch Automaton B for signs of degradation; Automaton B also watches Automaton A. Then Automaton C comes along to watch both of them and both of them watch Automaton C. And when one of them starts to degrade, it gets sent for repairs and then gets back to work.

Which is more or less how humans work. We continually evaluate ourselves for signs of degradation, but for those that we cannot perceive (like degradation of the mind), others will chime in when they notice errors happening in our functions.

LinkPizza posted...

The thing is, we already have one in place: money Why get rid of the bartering system we already have to make another.

Because money exists because of human labour. We've been over this.

In a fully automated future, how are you going to obtain money in the first place? You can't - there will be no jobs for you to do, because a robot is already doing those jobs and will be doing it better than you ever could. Even if you *want* to work, no one will hire you. They would have no reason to. So without money, how do you survive? Well, again, robots are doing all the work and robots don't need to be paid, so they will harvest food for you, make clothes for you, provide heat, and electricity, and entertainment goods, and, well, pretty much anything else you could ask for.

So if you have no way to earn money and, therefore, no way to spend it, money effectively doesn't exist for you. Now realize that everyone else is in the same boat. Suddenly, even if physical money does exist, it becomes completely meaningless because commerce doesn't exist anymore.

Land and real estate is one of the only things that machines can't make more of, so yeah, we're going to need a way to sort that out... but it won't be via money because, again, you have no way to make money.

LinkPizza posted...

They probably got data from more than Grandmasters, though.

No, actually - modern chess-bots are self-taught. They only need to know the rules. They, in essence, make a copy of themselves and start playing games against it and record what does and doesn't work in order to try and optimize moves. That's basically what General Adversarial Networks are.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

blu posted...

Why is there so much effort into preventing straws and forks being made of plastic but we dont limit people driving big honking trucks, SUVs, and buying new vehicles every 7 years?

Two different issues.

Disposable plastic deals with waste and the fact that we're generating a bunch of single-use stuff that will take longer to biodegrade than the likely lifespan of our entire species. Cars/vehicles deal with carbon emissions and climate change.

They're related but separate.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

This is a super dumb list and not even close to accurate. Anyways, I own 32, 27, 26, 14, 8, and 1.

So six of them, I guess.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

No, you give me a number first and *then* I'll give you the video game character.

I wasn't born yesterday, buddy.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Link_of_time posted...

Idk, shadows of the empire, rogue squadron, kotr, republic commando, OG battlefront 2, fallen order, unleashed 1, pod racer, legos. I dont think tie fighter holds a candle to any of these.

Dude, SotE, Republic Commando, Fallen Order, and both of the Unleashed games are trash, while the Lego games and Episode I Racer are merely OK. To put any of those on the same level as TIE Fighter is just straight-up wrong.

At least the other games you mentioned are good games. Not TIE Fighter good, but still good.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is it could still happen with an AI when the unexpected happens. And if the AI doesn't know it caused it accident because it was busy avoiding another accident, it could end up leaving the scene for somebody else self-driving car to take the blame...

Leaving the scene of an accident is illegal. If a human does not stop the AI from doing so with a manual override, they would be committing a crime.

And, again, this is not an AI problem. Humans can and do leave the scene of accidents all the time. However, the self-driving cars all have cameras that can be turned over to law enforcement to identify any vehicles that left the scene.

Again, you're citing a situation where an AI performs better than a human, yet somehow trying to use that to criticize the AI.

LinkPizza posted...

And if you remember our last conversation in the old topic

No, I don't remember our conversation in the old topic because I don't even know what topic you're referring to. Either link to it if it still exists or please stop referencing it, because you're asking me to answer for posts where I have no idea what either of us may or may not have said.

LinkPizza posted...

Nobody's going to buy a self-driving bus if it doesn't fit what they want or need.

You're right, nobody would buy a self-driving bus if it doesn't fit what they want or need.

Here's another fact: cities are buying self-driving buses.

What does that tell you?

You're making this way harder than it needs to be at this point.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

But there shouldn't be any downtime.

For those places with only a few registers, there would have to be.

LinkPizza posted...

And they probably wouldn't need to do much research as 1, people do that for them.

Not all stores are big enough to have a tech R&D division, and even the ones that do likely have competing priorities for their time. If their overall savings are not projected to be large, those man-hours are probably going to be assigned elsewhere.

LinkPizza posted...

Well, that's not true at all. When I got my iphone 6, it wasn't $1000 like the new iphones are. The smartphones I see are always getting more expensive than the previous ones. Game consoles, too... As they make better headsets for gaming, those also seem to get more expensive. Most of the newer stuff is better, but also more expensive. Because the parts are probably more expensive, as well... And if they have any shortages, they probably don't help much, either...

Well first off, you're not adjusting for inflation and secondly, you're restricting yourself to the top-end models.

I can get a brand-new smart phone today for $90; even without adjusting for inflation, there were no smart phones available that cheap 15 years ago. Yes, if you insist on having the newest, flashiest model, you're not necessarily going to see price savings, but if you're willing to go with something that's not top-of-the-line, lower costs become available the further into a product's development you go.

LinkPizza posted...

But for now, humans would do that better, as I think the car is focusing on other things around it... Like just sensing any obstacles instead of trying to read said obstacle's face...

You think wrong because you're applying human traits to a machine.

Robots don't "focus" on anything; they simply take in data from all around them. Having them read a human's face and identify potential problems (like them talking on a phone or nodding off) doesn't take any more effort from them than driving normally. Unlike humans, who have to focus their attention on specific tasks, AI are true multi-taskers, able to do as many different simultaneous tasks as they need to with no drop in effectiveness.

LinkPizza posted...

No. It exist.

Then prove it - not with your own theory, but with actual data and sources. I'm not going to try and answer for a hypothetical that, by your own admission, you can't even describe.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

There will still be tons of human labor when things are mostly automated.

We're not talking about when things are "mostly automated"; we're talking about when things are fully automated.

Again, you keep bouncing back and forth between these two on the exact same point; pick one and stick with it.

LinkPizza posted...

And so many jobs that they automations would have to be built specifically for everything.

No, actually, they don't.

Learning robots are a thing that exists right now. These are robots that aren't programmed for anything in particular, but can watch a human (or other robot) performing a task and mimic that task, in essence teaching themselves how to perform any given job you need them for. This can be cooking food, putting groceries away and, hypothetically, strapping wheelchairs into bus seats.

Right now this technology is still in its infancy, but it's a proof the concept works. The days of needing to specifically design a robot for one and only one task are rapidly ending; modern neural networks and learning AI are capable of learning any task you need them to perform.

LinkPizza posted...

Except people will still need money. Like I said in earlier, people will still need money for certain things. One of the main things being land. You don't just get land for free. Who's to say how much land each person gets? And what if you want to move?

And this is one of the open questions that will need to be solved before full - or even majority - automation is achieved.

Because money *is* going to go away in that future. There's no way around it. Money and commerce can't exist without human labour, because how do we pay someone if there's no jobs for them to do because robots do it all better and more effectively than humans can?

But there are still limited goods, land being an excellent example. So there will still be some form of exchange, but we need to work out what form that will take in order for it to be fair and reasonable.

LinkPizza posted...

And the reason it gets better is because it's taking that data and using it. It uses that data to move pieces in a certain way. A way that's most likely already been done before, as well...

Not the case, actually - some of the first chess computer AI actually determined that situations that grandmasters thought were automatic losses could actually be played out to a draw, or even a victory.

Also, since you're talking about "moving pieces", I'm guessing you're not familiar with how Go works, because there's no pieces to move. You put stones wherever you like on the board. Being able to understand the game and predict your opponent's strategy (and not fall for bluffs or feints) is critical and something that can't just be brute-forced by an AI, which is what I mentioned earlier. Yet the AI has managed to surpass that issue.

LinkPizza posted...

Games shouldn't be based on data since we want something new from it. Not the same thing as 10 others games mixed together (not all the time, at least)...

Except, games aren't "something new" - that's an illusion. They are the result of the data gathered by the biological computers that are our brains being permuted and combined into new combinations, the exact way an AI does. The only difference is the scope and scale of the data gathered, something that AI will be able to handle one day.

LinkPizza posted...

No. I said that people would WANT to get paid if they made stuff. And all you quoted was, "money will exist" which is what I've been saying this whole time. So what are you talking about?

I feel like you've completely forgotten what you were originally arguing.

Your original point was that in a fully automated world without money, people wouldn't make games or art because no one wants to do that unless they're getting paid. I pointed out that people *already* make games and art and distribute it for free today, so they would be willing to do it in a future without money as well. Then you decided to argue that money will still exist in the future.

Well, if that's your argument, then what were you complaining about to begin with? Your entire initial argument is that people don't make art/games if they don't get paid so a moneyless future is bad; now you're arguing that there will be money in the future, but that means people making art/games will still be paid, invalidating your original argument.

You've basically short-circuited your own argument at this point. Please sort it out and get back to me once you've worked out what it is you're actually trying to put forward.

LinkPizza posted...

I don't enough about music to say what it is.

What do you mean you don't know "what it is"? "It" is music (or pictures, in the case of the first link) - there's not really any more to it than that.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

The older ones will. But the newer one will usually get more expensive.

Again, this is not historically accurate. Computers, TVs, cell phones, printers, scanners, and other such tech become cheaper as time goes on, not more expensive.

LinkPizza posted...

They can do things the AI can't. Like reading fcial expressions and body language of peolpe in cars. And pedestrians, as well.

AI can literally do all of the things you just claimed it couldn't do and can do so faster and more accurately than a human can.

And, for what it's worth, the number of accidents that would be averted by the ability to accurately read someone's facial expression, of all things, is probably less than one a decade.

LinkPizza posted...

What I am saying is in certain cases, it could end up causing some weird chain reactions where all of the cars end up moving, which could cause and even bigger mess another way. Where in the case on human drivers, it might just be one car hitting another since the other won't all move. It's kind of hard to describe...

"It's kind of hard to describe" because you're making up a problem that doesn't exist, then expecting me to answer for it.

No, your hypothetical has no basis in reality. If you want me to believe otherwise, show some proof.

LinkPizza posted...

Because it depends on if the person who started it is still there or not. Because in a larger chain reaction, the first car might not even stay. It might not even know it caused it. Which then means it's shifts blame. Happened to my brother.

Is your brother an AI? Because if not, you've just admitted that this problem isn't a new one and, as such, is not an issue with AI.

An AI-caused crash is just as easy to sort through as a human-caused one. Technically it's easier, because the AI cars has sensors and logs and camera files you can pore through to work out who was actually at fault, which are features humans don't have.

LinkPizza posted...

When I said to show me a bus that had all those things, I meant all of them. And all of them together. And without a driver, since that's how you said it would be in that other topic, IIRC.

This is some serious goalpost moving. You're now asking me to come up with a comprehensive list of a bunch of features you haven't specified and also asking me to answer for a different random topic that you're referencing that I don't even know if I was involved with and you haven't linked to. No, I'm not doing that.

And I don't need to. Self-driving buses are being implemented in cities. That is unarguable fact. Any quibble you come up with - be it price, handicap accessibility, or some other factor - has already been considered and dealt with; if it hadn't, these buses wouldn't be getting implemented, because cash-strapped city governments are not going to put in transit programs that are *more* expensive and have no tangible benefits. The very fact that self-driving buses are already being rolled out is proof that they work and are cost-effective. And that transition is only going to go one way: forward.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

It doesn't mean money can't exist. It can and will.

I will say this as many times as I have to.

Money is a measure of human labour.

No human labour = no money.
Fully automated future = no human labour.

We may have some other currency, but it won't be money in the conventional sense because money only makes sense in a world where widespread human labour is a thing.

LinkPizza posted...

And in the future, there will still be people working. Full automation won't happen for decades.

...first you demand to talk about the fully automated future, and then when I explain to you how a fully automated future will work, you immediately veer back into talking about the interim period when things aren't fully automated. Please pick one and stick with it.

LinkPizza posted...

Yes. And they'll do that. Give you the money that they'll take again. Because it keeps them in control...

Power from money is ultimately derived from human labour, because money is an abstract expression of human labour. In a fully automated future, using money to try to control a populace isn't going to work, because you cannot command their labour with a currency that isn't founded on it. You can control people in other ways - through land access, for instance - but not through a bogus currency.

LinkPizza posted...

Playing a game isn't hard. Especially at something like chess.

I'd like to see you go a few rounds against Gary Kasparov if that's your opinion.

Regardless, you're missing the point. 25 years ago, people insisted that AI simply weren't capable of something as advanced as strategizing and game theory. And, indeed, at the time they weren't - Kasparov lost to Deep Blue just once in their six matches in 1996; when they had a rematch in 1997, Deep Blue won two matches to one (with the other three being draws). Today you can get a chess AI on your phone that's more powerful than Deep Blue.

In Go, the difference was even more pronounced. Even up to six years ago, no computer program had ever beaten a top Go player without a handicap (October 2015 was the first time a championship-level player was beaten by an AI, with Fan Hui getting swept by Google's AlphaGo AI in a five game series). Since then, the AlphaGo program - which was only trained by playing against itself - has beaten the top-ranked player in the world at the time - Ke Jie - in 89 of 100 games.

And AI in both games had to overcome some pretty historic and fundamental issues regarding move prediction and table tactics that could not be overcome by simply "brute forcing" a solution.

The creative process behind making a game is no different. This is an area where AI will eventually be able to reach - and probably surpass - human capability. We're not there yet and we won't be for a long time, but it will come.

LinkPizza posted...

Again, money will exist.

You're entire original argument was that people won't make art or games if they don't get paid; now you're saying that money exists and they will get paid, which contradicts your original argument.

Which one are you sticking with? Either you were wrong then or you're wrong now.

LinkPizza posted...

Humans do. But not the same as AI. Humans can usually make life experiences into art, whether it's a painting, music, or script. The AI stuff I've seen was them using data and basically mashing it together.

Humans make art exactly the same as AI, it's just that human algorithms are currently more advanced than AI equivalents.

Jigsaw was kind enough to post an example of AI-generated music, something that is almost indistinguishable from the human-generated version. Not all AI products are those crude "mash-ups" that you've probably seen from AI that's simple enough to be released for people's idle amusement on the internet.

Here's some others:
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAfLCTRuh7U

LinkPizza posted...

But is terms on money, it still makes more sense to do it now while things aren't needed, and then price raised later.

Not necessarily, for reasons I previously explained.

Perhaps they don't want to go through the research and downtime of upgrading. Perhaps they want to wait for the tech to get cheaper, because they believe that tech improvements and efficiencies will exceed the depreciation of purchased assets. Or maybe the CEO just didn't feel like bothering because the savings weren't significant enough for him to care.

CEOs aren't robots (yet), so they are not guaranteed to make the most logical move at every single prompt.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I do that all the time with OoT Randomizer runs. As soon as I get all the items I need to finish the game, there's probably a 50-75% chance I just abandon the run, because at that point it's just clearing whatever dungeon(s) still need to be finished and fighting Ganon, so all the fun has gone from the game at that point.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

Now would be the best time while you can still get it before it becomes even more expensive when all stores pretty much need them.

Technology gets *cheaper* the more widespread it is, not more expensive. Take a look at computer prices, or cell phone prices, or TV prices over time - after adjusting for inflation, they drop rapidly after adoption spreads (and it is that continually lowering price that fuels further market penetration).

LinkPizza posted...

It's not their largest expense by a long shot.

Yes, it is. Ask any long haul trucking company and they will tell you that wages are ~60% of their expenses. Fuel tends to be next, followed by maintenance/upkeep/depreciation of resources, then overhead. A truck that can replace a $60k a year driver, while driving over 4x as many hours per year, is a huge incentive.

LinkPizza posted...

It probably will change as it's an estimate.

It's not an estimate; this is hard data based on vehicles already on the road today.

LinkPizza posted...

But how they act will change as more are on the road.

Yes, because there's fewer idiot humans doing dumb things, so the entire system will get safer.

This isn't really helping your case.

And human drivers can signal each other? Not with nearly as much fidelity and completeness as AI. This isn't even arguable.

LinkPizza posted...

Or a pedestrian doing something dumb, causing a car to try to move out of the way, which causes a reaction with all of them, and could cause more of a mess... Because pedestrians will definitely do something dumb...

Cars are already programmed to account for human stupidity. They're trained to anticipate things like cars or pedestrians running red lights/walking against a signal, cutting them off, etc., and they can anticipate and react to such actions far faster than the best human drivers could ever hope to, given that they have both a reaction time that can be measured in fractions of a millisecond, as well as a 360 degree field of view.

LinkPizza posted...

And that's why I'm saying insurance can get very confusing, especially when a chain reaction happens...

Why would it be any different than today, when a multi-car pileup caused by human error happens?

You work out which car(s) screwed up and its their insurance that is responsible. This is not nearly as complicated as you're trying to pretend it is.

LinkPizza posted...

Then show me the better ones, like I out in the rest of the quote you cut out...

Google is just a few clicks away.

Here's one that can fit 80 people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3A4TmETLTc

Here's some others:
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/03/self-driving-bus-begins-technical-trials-in-manchester/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-9wk6QTD1E
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/01/29/self-driving-tech-goes-to-transit-with-new-flyers-autonomous-electric-bus/?sh=6ee674d348db
https://interestingengineering.com/self-driving-vehicles-for-urban-mobility-deployed-in-european-smart-cities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4ekhVSbEI
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/driverless-electric-bus- hits-the-road-in-spanish-city-of-malaga

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

There's no proof that money won't exist.

Yes there is.

I've already covered this - money is a measure of human labour. It was invented when we shifted from a barter economy ("I will trade you one goat for a cubit of lumber") into a monetary one, where we agreed that people would award each other these little magic tokens based on an arbitrary unit of value.

In a fully automated future, no human labour is happening. That means money cannot exist, because there's no way to earn it (because robots are doing all the jobs) and nothing to spend it on (robots make everything with zero human input).

By definition, money only exists in a world where we have human labour that needs to be recognized and valued; in a fully automated future, that prerequisite no longer exists.

LinkPizza posted...

Even now, people have already lost their jobs and have no money to pay for anything.

Yes, because other people are still working because we don't live in a fully automated world.

Some people are working == not fully automated == money exists
No people are working == fully automated == money cannot exist

This is a very simple relationship.

LinkPizza posted...

As long as they can make sure people have a little money when they have a lot, and keep things costing an amount, they can keep that power...

That's a nonsense system, though. After all, if the people "in power" need the people without power to have money, that means they have to give it to them, purely so they can take it from them again.

What's the point? If I charge you 300 DKDollars for my services, then mail you 300 DKDollars as a reward for using my services afterwards, those DKDollars have no value because you're not doing anything to earn them. I'm not paying for your labour, just giving you tokens that you can give back to me in some bizarre trading game.

The reason why people in power covet money today is because money represents human labour, which represents power. By having a token representing human labour, you can exchange those tokens to make people do what you want. In a fully automated future, that's no longer true. Money would have no power because people could live their lives completely satisfactorily without any money and, therefore, buying someone's labour is both impossible and pointless (why spend money on a person when a machine can do the same thing cheaper and better?)

LinkPizza posted...

Nah. I don't think they'll ever surpass us.

It would be almost impossible for them not to.

Technology improves at a rate far faster than biology can match. Computers are less than a century old, yet they are already capable of doing most tasks as good or better than humans. That they haven't yet matched us in specific fields in no way suggests that they won't be able to in the future.

This "oh, humans are just naturally better at this sort of thing" logic has been tested before and it has never, ever held water. People assumed for a long time that games like Ichigo and Chess were too complex for a machine to play at the level of a human grandmaster, who can think 30, 40, 50 moves ahead and who can feint out opponents with false strategies. Then AIs were developed that even the greatest masters of the game could not beat.

This is, in essence, simply the next level as that. AI are currently nowhere close to being as good at humans at creative endeavours, but that will change - and likely change rapidly - in the future.

LinkPizza posted...

It like when people make a good free game on the internet, and eventually, a bunch of people play it. And now they can make a better game that cost money. Some people do it for that specific reason. Make something for free to get noticed, then make more for money...

And some don't. Some do it purely for the joy of creating something. Some do it for fame or recognition, which would still be valid currency in an automated future (hell, that sort of influence would probably be one of the more valuable currencies in a world where money no longer exists).

LinkPizza posted...

The fact that the AI needs something to work off of.

So do humans.

We require input data as well. A baby doesn't just come out of the chute and immediately start churning out amazing works of art. They need data to calibrate their language skills, data to understand how to produce art, data to understand what makes art good. A master artist - whether that's a painter, an author, a dancer, or something else - is a product of *decades* worth of data input, the same way an AI is. Humans don't get to create anything until they have enough baseline data to understand *how* to create something meaningful.

LinkPizza posted...

There has to be a reason for that when putting it everywhere would make more money.

And I've already explained to you why that is - a minimal savings, relative to other expenses, is not going to prompt the sort of swift industry transformation that a much more substantive savings will.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

But there's no reason for the CEO's to not do this as it's not them having to do this.

Sure there is.

It's not like someone comes up to you and says, "Hey, this will automatically save you $5 million a year!". What you see is someone selling a product for $XX. You then need to do the research to see how reliable these products are, what the maintenance costs are, how many workers you could feasibly replace with automatons, and whether the whole effort is worth it. There's non-zero time, investiture, and effort that goes into that - if the projected savings aren't expected to be significant, the CEO probably won't bother at that point until the math changes (they may, for instance, wait for the tech to become cheaper so that the start-up costs are minimized).

LinkPizza posted...

Also, if you think that cost is insignificant, then they probably won't do buses, either. Bus drivers don't get paid that much.

I've already explained the difference numerous times.

For most retailers, staff salary is a relatively small expense; for transportation, staff salary is their largest expense. Being able to replace their drivers could feasibly more than double their profits in some industries, which is something that a retailer cannot claim. There is a big difference in cost drivers between those two industries.

LinkPizza posted...

Once they are a ton on the road, things will change. There will probably be more accidents. More self-driving vehicles means more chances for one or more to have a malfunction.

The accident rate of a self-driving vehicle is much lower than the average human driver.

Because the rate is already adjusted for the number of vehicles on the road (and the amount of kilometres those vehicles drive), this will not changed as self-driving cars become more widely adopted. If anything, widespread adoption will drop accident rates even farther, because self-driving cars can talk to one another (and to smart tech in and on the road itself) in ways that human-operated cars never could. A self-driving car could signal another self-driving car that it is experiencing a brake malfunction in order to avert an accident; a human-driven car cannot do the same.

You are trying to create a problem where none exists.

LinkPizza posted...

And they all won't be perfect.

They don't need to be; they just need to be better than us.

And you know what? They already are. And they're getting better each year.

LinkPizza posted...

I'm looking at the one you sent me...

Which is not the only one that exists.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

. And even then, many interest cost some kind of starting fund. Which nobody will have any money for...

Again, fully automated world, money doesn't exist.

Want to get into painting? A robot will make you some paints, an easel, and a palette. Baseball more your thing? A robot will make you a glove, a bat, and a ball. Board games? Musical instruments? Photography? Any "start-up" costs can be taken care of via automated labour, effectively for free.

LinkPizza posted...

Yes. You absolutely can. Producing everything for free means everything is profit for them. And they'll try to keep it like that. making all the money without having to use any... Just because you aren't greedy doesn't mean others aren't. So, they powerful will definitely try to keep money around so that they;ll till be in power. It's nave to think they'll be fine with just letting everything be free. Sometimes, people will find a cheaper way to mass produce something. But they'll leave the price the same. Because it means more profit to them. Even it the product winds up being shittier... Because money...

Greed - and commerce - requires other people to have money. If I want to sell my new invention for 100 DKDollars, but no one else in the world has DKDollars, then I can't exactly charge money for it anymore.

Same thing here. In a fully automated world, robots take over all the jobs. No human jobs means no human income, which ultimately means no human money. Fortunately, since money is simply recompense for human labour, this is not an issue because there is no human labour anymore.

LinkPizza posted...

Just because some games and stories suck doesn't mean the robots are better. Just means that some suck. But the best games and stories are by people.

At the moment, yes, this is true. But you're talking about a fully automated future. We've already proved that robots can make art and games; now they just need to learn more and get better at it. They will surpass us one day and it will probably be in decades, not centuries.

LinkPizza posted...

There's no lie. You're lying if you think that's a lie.

You claimed that no one would want to make games and write stories for free, which is ignoring that there are lots of people *today* who make games and write stories for free, largely because they find it interesting. That's why I called it a lie.

LinkPizza posted...

People will always make better stories and games... Because people do they best to come up with something original.

So what is inherent in our biological grey-matter computers that allows us to come up with "original" ideas that is impossible to replicate in a sufficiently advanced AI?

LinkPizza posted...

But self-checkout isn't pushed everywhere yet.

I never claimed that it was and I'm not really sure why you went on this side-tangent, because it's not related to anything I talked about.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

They technology it uses it old (which makes sense since the self-checkout was invented in 1992 and is old technology itself). But it still needs to be tested with regular people use it themselves. And see how they actually interact with all of it. People fuck shit up all the time. Whether accidentally or on purpose...

This argument is just as applicable to smart phones as self-checkouts.

LinkPizza posted...

And for phones, you don't have to enter you banking data.

But that is an option that smartphones offer and therefore, like all other tools and functionalities - from touch screens to facial recognition to data security - it must be extensively tested, whether you - a single end user - choose to make use of it or not.

LinkPizza posted...

That saves a ton of money, especially over 20 years.

You're not getting this.

Yes, it saves money - I never disputed that. I'm saying that, proportional to their other expenses, it doesn't save enough for it to drive significant change. Like, if someone offered me a way to save $100 a year, that's cool... but sheer human laziness means there's an excellent chance I won't bother, given that it's a tiny portion of my take-home income. On the other hand, if someone offered me a way to save $50,000 a year, then yeah, I'd take that in a heartbeat.

Same thing with grocery stores. Wages are *not* a big part of their expenses, relative to the other costs they have to pay out, so even if they could halve their workforce (and that's a very open question, given that cashiers in most stores aren't *exclusively* cashiers and still have to help with things like stocking and inventory) it's not going to have nearly as big of an impact on them as that same reduction in work force would have on the transportation sector.

LinkPizza posted...

It's not the same, though. Because in most cases, they already know who's fault it is, even if the person is gone. And they'll shift. But this different since they are no drivers in either vehicle. So, it's not about whether companies will insure the car. It's about fault and who's paying the deductible in most cases. Because there will obviously be accidents...

You keep acting like self-driving cars aren't on the road, insured, today.

They are. This problem has already been looked at and determined to not be a problem.

With self-driving cars, it's far easier to determine who is at fault because the cars all have cameras in them, so you review the footage and say "Oh, that car's AI did something it wasn't supposed to - that car's insurance company now has to pay up."

And insurance companies are happy to take that arrangement because, again, the accident rate for self-driving cars is far below the average human driver.

LinkPizza posted...

The only thing I saw was that one van.

Then you haven't been looking.

I'll say it again: self-driving buses already exist. They've already addressed the problems you're talking about. This is not an issue for them.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

And you can only do a hobby so much before it becomes boring, as well.

Then get more hobbies. You say work offers variety? Then vary up your personal life as well. There's no reason why you need to rely on work to do that.

Shit, if I didn't have to work I could easily go 500 years without getting bored.

LinkPizza posted...

Because people are greedy.

Greed doesn't factor into it. You can't be "greedy" when everything is, essentially, produced for free. You can have everything you want and that still won't impede anyone else for getting the same thing.

Even if money sticks around, it will swiftly become meaningless because robots exist and have an upkeep-to-labour ratio that rounds down to zero.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially because so things humans do better than robots. Like writ stories, and make games. And nobody would want to do that for no reason.

Well, first of all, the deluge of free stories and games available online *right now* kind of highlights the lie in this assertion. More to the point, you're talking about a fully automated world - in a fully automated world, robots will be able to make games and write stories as good or better than humans can.

Robots can already produce art and write stories and write programs. They can't do it as well as humans can *yet*, but they will improve and get there eventually.

LinkPizza posted...

the transition time between that and no is going to be hell for the people that aren't making money that still need it

This is what I highlighted before and you dismissed - the transition time is the rough part; the end result is not something to be feared.

And we can manage the transition through things like UBI, but that needs to have more political will put behind it for it to be effective.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

TIE Fighter is the best Star Wars game and it isn't even particularly close.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

And no one needing to work sounds boring.

Then you should try taking up a hobby. Work should not be the only thing in your life.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially when you can't afford anything because you make no money.

Why would money still exist in a world where robots make everything and human labour becomes redundant?

Money is a physical representation of scarcity, which is the idea that human labour is limited and we are therefore owed recompense for it. In a world where the human cost of the production of anything rounds down to zero, the very idea of money becomes pretty meaningless.

LinkPizza posted...

Self-checkouts have a computer, but also other things like a scanner, conveyor belt (for some), weight sensors (for some, again), and have to see how they will be used by people.

Scanners, conveyor belts, and weight sensors are technology that is decades old. They do not need to be tested to make a self-checkout station.

Hell, a self checkout station isn't really all that different from a normal cashier's station - they're relying on, more or less, the exact same technology.

By contrast, a smart phone is relying on numerous features (like cellular data transfer) and security mechanisms (like facial recognition) that had never been implemented on such a wide scale before. To call them "mini-computers" is laughably simplistic, given that they don't even share operating system architecture.

You think someone trying to steal $100 worth of groceries is bad? Your phone has to protect your banking info, which is probably worth several orders of magnitude more than that.

LinkPizza posted...

In 20 years, the amount of money that could have been save from self-checkouts in a ton.

Relative to their other expenses? No, not really. Otherwise, logically, they would have switched over by now.

If, by switching mortgage companies, I could somehow half my monthly payments I would have no reason not to do so. For self checkouts, stores simply didn't see enough financial incentive to make the change.

It's not an issue of the technology being there, it's an issue of there not being as much of a driver to adopt it. That is not true in the transportation sector, where individual wages are higher and collective wages make up a much, much higher portion of expenditure.

LinkPizza posted...

Like how the insurance will work, which I think is a big one.

Insurance will work the same as it does now. Insurance companies *love* self-driving cars for the same reason employers do - they're more reliable than humans. A customer that pays their premium every year and never gets into any accidents or has any claims is pretty much the perfect customer as far as an insurance company is concerned.

Have you noticed how insurance companies are already offering you discounts to install "safe driver" equipment on your car (like speed monitors that confirm you aren't speeding)? Self-driving cars are that taken to the extreme.

Insuring self-driving cars isn't a problem now, nor will it be in the future.

LinkPizza posted...

That's cars. But I'm talking about public transport.

So am I.

Automated buses are already on the road today and there are no issues with disabled people using them.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/self-driving-uber-car-hit-killed-woman-did-not-recognize-n1079281

Definitely better.

You're making a common error, which is mistaking "better" for "perfect".

Self-driving cars aren't perfect. They also don't need to be.

Self-driving cars don't get tired or angry or distracted. They don't try to drive drunk or hung-over or stoned. They don't speed and run red lights because they're running late for a meeting or cut somebody off because they forgot to shoulder-check.

That alone already puts them pretty far ahead of humans. That they have other problems that humans don't doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

Car accidents are one of the leading causes of injury and death. They're the top cause amongst non-medical ailments and also the top cause period amongst children and those under 25. The same day that woman was killed by a self-driving car, over 100 other people in the US alone died in car accidents caused by humans.

LinkPizza posted...

So, again, I'll be dead by the time the world is gully automated (and shitty because of it)...

Ironically, the point where the world is *fully* automated is actually when things look like they'll be amazing, because we'll be in a Star Trek-like utopia where no one needs to work because robots handle everything.

It's the point between then and now, where robots do some stuff but not everything, that will be challenging. *That* is the part you should be worried about, not the post-singularity fully automated world.

LinkPizza posted...

A lesser technology that needs less testing that goes faster.

You think *smart phones* are "lesser" and need less testing than self-service check-outs?

Seriously?

LinkPizza posted...

With how long it's taken self-checkouts (something that needs much less testing to use) took to get where it is today, it'll probably be at least another 10-15 years before it becomes somewhat common.

There's a huge difference in economic drivers there.

Self-service checkouts take a minimum wage cashier off the floor of a store whose biggest expenditures are overhead and inventory. The costs of wages for them are puny compared to their other expenditures.

By contrast, for transportation companies their drivers are by far their biggest expense (especially if you count in incidental expenses, like damages, accidents, and down-time caused by human error). Over half of their expenditures are salary for drivers. There is a huge incentive for them to automate and it's not going to take long for them to do it, hence why some of them are already moving in that direction.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially since a huge portion of out clients are in wheelchairs, and need to be secured once on the bus. In other cities where self-driving buses are, I'm guess they don't have the same amount of people in wheelchairs, if they have any...

People in wheelchairs exist in all cities. That problem has already been solved.

https://www.iberdrola.com/innovation/disabled-vehicles

Self-driving cars are actually being looked at with a great deal of interest by the disabled communities. There's buses that know sign-language, which put them ahead of a standard driver, and they're generally seen as improving accessibility for those who are unable to drive them selves in a normal vehicle.

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. And it's costing people their jobs, which really suck and make the world a shittier place...

Better start working to figure out how to improve that then, because automation isn't stopping. Instead of sitting there and saying, "It won't affect me" - which isn't a very smart gamble, if you ask me - you'd be better off brainstorming solutions to allow humans to function in an increasingly automated world.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

The first self-checkout was apparently invented in 1992 when I was 3. They became more popular and were in store in the early 2000s. Now, nearly 20 years after becoming popular, they still aren't in all stores.

Counterpoint: the first true smartphone showed up in 2002; 10 years later, there were 680 million of them in circulation and five years after that they hit 1.5 billion.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Revelation34 posted...

Everything won't be fully automated in 10 years.

Enough of it will be that you'll notice and be impacted by it.

Like, self-driving cars are a technology that exists today. That's not future tech, that's something that exists and is already on the road. The first automated buses have already been introduced on select routes in pilot cities. The first fully-automated long-haul truck delivery has also been done. The next step is going to be widespread rollout and costs dropping from economies of scale.

About 10% of the US workforce is employed in the transportation sector and the vast majority of those jobs can and will be destroyed by self-driving cars. And that will happen in years, not decades. People act like self-driving cars are still a conceptual thing, but they're not - they're real and they don't have to be perfect to replace humans, just better than us, and they're already there.

And that's just one piece of tech. Farmers are experimenting with automated harvesters to reduce their reliance on farm labourers. Newspapers employ programs to pre-write their articles, then just use a human editor to touch them up. Lawyers use algorithms for discovery, engineers have been programming pieces of their jobs into obsolescence for years, and medical workers are increasingly turning to AIs like Watson to help them in their job. We're even seeing robot artists and musicians producing artwork from automation.

And again, I hasten to add, none of this is future tech, it's all out there today. If you don't think change is in your near future, you are mistaken.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

LinkPizza posted...

And while people are going to have to learn to adapt, I won't. I have no need to. Like I've said, by the time the world is shitty and automation has fully taken over, I'll be dead, anyway...

You planning on dying in the next ten years?

Because if not, I think you're grossly overestimating the amount of time it will take for automation to have a huge impact on the economy.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

It's not really a matter of liking it or not - it's happening and we need to figure out how to adapt to an automated world.

IronBornCorps posted...

Automation doesn't reduce jobs.

Of course it does. Automation (and its predecessor, industrialization) has been reducing jobs for centuries. Automation and industrialization are the reason why we've shifted from a primarily goods-based economy (for much of human history, ~80% of our work force went to the cultivation of food; today that number is less than 5%) to a service based one.

The very definition of "automation" is to get a machine to do a job that was previously done by a human. And the only way that's economical is if jobs - or their benefits - go down. Like, say that I'm the CEO of Company X that makes XYZ widgets. I pay my 20 employees $50k a year each, for a total of $1 million a year. Then a robot salesman comes along and tells me he can automate half my production line. The only way that offer makes economical sense for me is if my overall pay for the robots works out to $500k a year or less.

This is a bit oversimplistic, but it shows the critical problem here. If the robot company sells me the robots to automate my production line at $400k a year, that means that their own employees that worked to build those robots must cost, at most, $400k a year minus the cost of materials and overhead. For my ten now-unemployed former workers who are looking for jobs and who, collectively, previously made $500k a year, they couldn't just go work for the robot factory without either taking a pay cut or having some of them remain unemployed.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I vaguely remember seeing ads for something like that. Hell if I know what it was, though...

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

Meanwhile only CT would have to pick between two multi-millionaires who had never held political office

Yeah, nothing good ever comes from electing rich guys who have zero previous political experience.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

You have my sympathies.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I think DC and PR statehood is almost inevitable at this point. Guam and the other territories probably wouldn't be far behind.

MartianManchild posted...

I could see Canada begging to become part of the United States and us reluctantly agreeing eventually.

Funniest comment in the thread. What exact do you guys have to offer us for joining? Shittier healthcare, sky-high COVID numbers, pants-on-head stupid politics, soaring murder/crime rates, and a mountain of debt?

Zeus posted...

lol @ the diminishing influence remark

That the US's influence is diminishing and has been for some time is almost unarguable. Given that you spent the last four years supporting the most isolationist US government since the end of WW2, I'd figure you would understand that. Isolationist governments, by design, have no influence. You have to be willing to get involved in world affairs if you want to have influence.

US influence was at its nadir in the 80s and 90s when US governments were fully willing to step in and throw their military and economic causes around, both for good reasons (Bush interceding to halt the Iraqi invasion/annexation of Kuwait) and bad (Reagan overthrowing democratically-elected socialist governments in South America and replacing them with right-wing dictators who consequently committed horrific human rights atrocities). The influence started to wane in the Bush Jr. years due to his misadventures in the Middle East, continued declining through the Obama admin thanks to a delay in recognizing the rising power of China, and plummeted in the Trump years thanks to enforced isolationist policies (including a removal of funding for several international bodies that had bought the US considerable influence abroad) and an almost universal drop in foreign opinion of the US. Currently, US influence is probably at its lowest point in the last 40 years at least and with the rise of China as a legitimate global superpower, gaining that influence back will be a tall order.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

There 100% will be a far larger portion of the workforce that shifts to working from home.

I work for a company with over 30,000 employees worldwide, mostly in North America. Prior to the pandemic, I was one of a few hundred at most who worked from home full time. During the pandemic, the company shifted all of us to remote work and closed all of their offices; they swiftly discovered how much they saved on rent and overhead as a result and several of our physical offices got permanently shut down and sold off as a result. Now they've committed to a 50/40/10 split of their workforce post-pandemic, where 50% works in the office full time, 10% works from home full time, and 40% is in the office 1-2 days a week, working from home the rest of the time.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

ParanoidObsessive posted...

what you're describing is pretty much what arcades have always been, going all the way back to the 1970s.

This.

Arcades were always overstimulation. That was half their appeal to their target audience.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

19 years old

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Other: Canada Dry

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Hell, the katana is considered the perfect sword for virtually all situations, and Europeans didn't both to make their own even after learning about them.

The katana is a perfect sword for a civilization where metal armour is extremely limited. Introduce plate mail to the equation and its effectiveness drops substantially.

Katana are, like most longswords, also very tricky to use in areas where mobility is limited, such as indoors or in naval combat. Classical Japanese sword schools have waza for these scenarios, but broadly speaking you would more likely be using a short-sword, like a wakizashi, for such situations. They also tend to fare badly against spears, which is why they were considered a secondary weapon for much of Japan's history, with the primary weapon being either the yumi (bow) or the yari (spear).

There is no one weapon that is "perfect" for all situations and part of the reason why weapons varied so widely across the iron age world is that they were developed under different conditions and for different styles of battle.

Zeus posted...

I generally prefer the look of the Asian halberds, like the naginata.

Naginata were not halberds and were not used as such. They lack the ability to hook opponents that is considered a signature characteristic of halberds. It's also longer than most halberds would be, relative to the user.

You can classify a naginata as a polearm or a spear, but not as a halberd.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Krazy_Kirby posted...

you hate polls that much?

"Pollax"/"Pollaxe" is the correct spelling. The "poll" means "head". "Poleaxe"/"Poleax" is a corruption.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Lokarin posted...

As an ex-president he would get free maintenance on that plane as well as an additional $1million travel allowance...

I am fairly confident this isn't true. Former presidents get a ~$200k a year pension, private office staff, medical insurance, and lifetime Secret Service protection for themselves, their spouses, and their non-adult children. The travel allowance is for work-related activities only and I can find nothing that suggests that the maintenance on a private plane would be covered.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

DeltaBladeX posted...

https://i.imgur.com/nywvtEr.jpg

Those Sonics are on all the drugs.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

The analogies just write themselves.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

pwwnd123 posted...

No way, Mario should be Peach's king since he's the King of Video Games because he's been around since Donkey Kong.

Mario would be a prince-consort, not a king. Since he's not royalty by blood and would have instead married into the royal family, he would not be granted the title of "king", as the regency would lie with Peach, given that she's the actual monarch.

This is assuming that the Mushroom Kingdom monarchy allows marriages between royalty and commoners without the royalty giving up their titles, which is far from guaranteed. This actually may explain why Peach and Mario have remained unwed for so long, especially if there's others in the Toadstool family that could have legitimate claims to the throne if Peach's status as the crown-princess is called into question.

To be honest, I'm not 100% familiar with the rules of succession within the Mushroom Kingdom, so if anyone can point me towards the relevant statues published by Nintendo governing such matters, I would be most interested in reading up on it.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I always find it weird how Zeus is dead-set against executions as long as they're not done by cops.

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Dmess85 posted...

I saw a falcom picture with the caption "king of harem".

Was it Rean or Lloyd?

---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!