| Board List | |
|---|---|
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:46:19 AM #206 | LinkPizza posted...Probably. Hey, you know what's cheaper than owning a car? Being part of the car subscription service we were just talking about. Which was a point I raised a few weeks ago, so congratulations on catching up. LinkPizza posted...How are they going to get cars if, as you've just admitted, they can't afford them? LinkPizza posted...11 years ago was the depths of a little event called "The Great Recession", something that disproportionately affected young people. It had a bit of an impact on the ability of people to buy cars. LinkPizza posted...Your personal anecdotes are not statistically significant. I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating that before it sinks in. I have no idea why you keep bringing these stories up. They add absolutely nothing to the debate. I couldn't respond to them even if I wanted to, which I don't, and even if I did, it means absolutely nothing in the context of what's being discussed. LinkPizza posted...Because everything you just mentioned have humans involved, making them less convenient and more expensive than a self-driving car would be in the same situation. A self-driving car does not need to pay a wage; you just need to compensate it for fuel and car wear-and-tear for however long you "borrow" it, which is significantly less expensive than owning your own car. LinkPizza posted...We have those for people who leave their keys in the ignition; somehow we get by without people swearing off cars in a rage. LinkPizza posted...Those people better never go outside then, because there are security cameras everywhere. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:45:14 AM #205 | LinkPizza posted...And? I never said this is going to be fast in coming. Before a law mandating self-driving cars would be viable, they'd have to be widespread. That's going to take several decades. It will happen, though - we don't permit unsafe activities when a safer alternative becomes viable. LinkPizza posted...Enjoy sitting at home then, I guess. LinkPizza posted...Hey, another Trumpian "many people" statement, and an unsourced one to boot. LinkPizza posted...You realize both those companies are heavily invested in the self-driving auto industry and are aiming longterm to replace their human drivers with self-driving cars, yes? Hell, both of them operate on the "press a button on your phone, car arrives and drives you to your destination, then leaves" business model I was talking about that you claimed was so terrible. LinkPizza posted...On what metric? LinkPizza posted...Sounds like the issue is not the business model, but its implementation then. You just admitted this sort of business can be successful, so the rest of your protests on this point are basically meaningless. Thanks for the concession. LinkPizza posted...The context was not in the very next sentence, because you literally just had to go back to one of my previous quotes to explain what you were responding to, something you should have done in the first place. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:44:19 AM #204 | LinkPizza posted...Which is a point in favour of self-driving cars, because if we switch over to self-driving cars we will be able to raise the speed limits, thanks to the fact that AI drivers see better, are more attentive, and can react faster than any human drivers, allowing them to safely travel at higher speeds. LinkPizza posted...Numbers that will rapidly drop when the technology starts going more prime time and people start seeing the practical benefits, from lower car insurance costs, to increased leisure time. People tend to be bad at predicting technological futures. I'm sure if you asked people 30 years ago, you'd probably see 48% say they'd never own a cell phone (because back then they were mostly rich-people toys that few people owned and few saw the purpose of, given that payphones were everywhere and were a fraction of the cost) or that they'd never get an internet connection (back then the internet was a nerd toy and little more than that). Things change and they change pretty quickly. LinkPizza posted..."Not ready for primetime" is a very nebulous statement that I wouldn't put much stock into. What are people referring to with that? Commercial vehicles or personal? Urban driving or rural? Depending on the answers, I might agree with them. The technology isn't perfect and parts of it are still under development; but in certain applications, it is 100% ready for prime time and that really isn't arguable based on facts. Asking a bunch of people, the overwhelming majority of whom know nothing about AI, their opinions on self-driving cars is kind of like asking random people whether they think we should be using fusion-bonded epoxy coatings or triple-layer polyethylene for our underground infrastructure - they don't have the technical knowledge to meaningfully answer the question, so their opinions are basically worthless. LinkPizza posted...And we're four for four on the "No U!" responses now. Literally none of those surveys address the point you were responding to, where you claim that "most people" want to own cars rather than have a lower cost rental that can pick them up and drop them off anywhere on demand. So yes, you are 100% using the False Consensus effect. And I am 100% not, because at no point did I say that "everyone supports AI" or anything similar (again, please learn what these terms actually mean if you're going to try to use them - it's just sad that I have to correct you on this). I am fully aware that not everyone does because uneducated people exist who don't understand how AI works or what the statistics are behind them. People fear what they don't understand and most people don't understand AI. Once they see it first hand, that issue will resolve itself. LinkPizza posted...We weren't even talking about "enjoyment" at this part of the debate, but whatever. You basically just said that only a third of people really enjoy driving; most are neutral on it, with some decidedly negative. Your own source scuppers your point. LinkPizza posted...Largely because with most of your points you clearly haven't. LinkPizza posted...People would not riot over having their cars drive them places. Citation: people did not riot when forced to give up their horses and buggies for cars. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:43:33 AM #203 | LinkPizza posted...When your context clues are ambiguous to the point of worthlessness, that reflects more on your inability to write coherent counterpoints than anything I'm doing. I'm not going to waste my time crawling through the topic trying to figure out what you're responding to if you can't be bothered to put in the bare minimum effort to actually state the subject you're responding to or quote the section in question. LinkPizza posted...Your personal anecdotes are not statistically significant. We literally just went through this. LinkPizza posted...Good businesspeople operate on facts, not ill-informed gut feelings. Once the financial driver is there, they will do it. LinkPizza posted...Way too low of a price for what? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted...In which case, everywhere that enacts such bans will rapidly fall behind those who allow them, until they are rendered effectively obsolete and will be forced to adapt. Every country that has tried to ban progress, from "Celestial Empire" Japan in the pre-Meiji Restoration era to the late stages of the Qing dynasty in China, has seen themselves fall into stagnation and malaise before ultimately being forced into the future (usually at gunpoint from hostile foes). LinkPizza posted...And are now widespread, proving my point. LinkPizza posted...I may think what makes the point that AI drivers are better? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:42:32 AM #202 | LinkPizza posted...Because it will do the job a lot better than you can. You have less of a chance of winding up hurt or dead with a robot at the wheel than yourself. That's not my opinion, that is cold hard fact. You choosing to continue driving instead of trusting an AI is putting yourself and others at greater risk, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. LinkPizza posted...No such thing in the world of self-driving cars. LinkPizza posted...Again, the machine is statistically better than both of you. You objectively have far more reason to trust the AI than anyone you know. LinkPizza posted...Commerce doesn't care about feelings or soul and appealing to them is not a reasonable argument. Sure, you might treasure a gift from a grandmother who hand-quilted you a blanket as a present. AI aren't going to replace that and I never said they would. But that situation covers significantly less than 1% of all textile manufacture. Machines can and will do that job better, faster, and cheaper than any human worker and that will be sufficient for nearly all forms of production. LinkPizza posted...This opinion, grammatically challenged though it may be, is not widely held. Moreover, they didn't do very well in stopping the industrial process, so I wouldn't get your hopes up for following the same path. LinkPizza posted...Human driving on roadways will one day be banned for the same reason drunk driving and driving without a seat belt are currently banned - it's not safe and a far safer alternative is available. LinkPizza posted...Sure - I mean, there are still morons who still drink and drive or refuse to drive without a seat belt. But those people are idiots and are widely derided as so. I never claimed these changes won't happen without a fight. Of course they will - reactionary people who don't understand science still exist and will continue to exist in the future. They will fight this change because they don't understand it and don't realize it will save tens of thousands of lives every year. And, much like the dinosaurs still drinking and driving, they will eventually be caught and stamped out. They will have a far harder time hiding their law-dodging, because an AI-driven car force will eventually result in traffic controls being taken away (no need to bother with things like stoplights or stop signs when cars can simply talk to one another as they approach the intersection and coordinate who gets to go when in order to maximize efficiency). --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:40:47 AM #201 | LinkPizza posted...They don't need to - one altruist simply needs to upload the plans for a self-perpetuating robot online and you'll be able to make your own (or have a friend make it for you). LinkPizza posted...Humans will require compensation for as long as they require other humans to do things to facilitate their survival. As soon as robots take over industries needed for human survival (food production, housing, etc.), that no longer holds true. LinkPizza posted...Sure, but the shift to digital is generally accepted as the main reason they went bankrupt. LinkPizza posted...They were a Fortune 500 company that employed 140,000 employees worldwide in the 1980s; they currently employ roughly 20,000 employees, had to declare bankruptcy, and make less than 10% of what they did just 15 years ago. Saying "they're still around" is grossly misrepresenting their current state and how well they weathered the technology shift from film to digital. LinkPizza posted...>Says they failed for a lot more reasons than the shift to digital. >Starts talking about how the shift to digital killed them. Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? LinkPizza posted...What shouldn't even be a question? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted...Again, don't get upset at me for your own bad grammar. Proofread your posts next 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:39:44 AM #200 | LinkPizza posted...You're talking about a one-time fee of a few hundred dollars, followed by a monthly bill that could be less than $50, in return for materials which, just 30 years ago, would have run you tens of thousands of dollars (add up how much it would cost for hard copies of all the free Youtube videos, music, books, forums, etc. you consume in a month - the numbers go up remarkably quickly). You're basically making my argument for me at this point. LinkPizza posted...Honestly, if you can't live "comfortably" on a standard of living that would have placed you in the top 1% of earners 50 years ago, that says more about you than the current state of the world. LinkPizza posted...None of this in any way disproves anything I've said. I said free material is available, not that everything is free. Seriously, why did you even bring this up, it has nothing to do with anything I've said. LinkPizza posted...Who are they paying when the robots are building and maintaining themselves? If your parents gave you a robot that could constantly repair itself and go out and build copies of itself using resources it harvested without your involvement, who would you need to pay money to? LinkPizza posted...If robots are handling that, who are you proposing they pay money to? LinkPizza posted...If you are posting on this forum, you have access to more material right now - without paying anything more than you're already paying - than anyone on the planet 30 years ago. Youtube alone has more hours of video content than anyone in the world could access 20 years ago, and all of it is right at your fingertips, for free, where the only imposition on you is that you occasionally have to watch a few seconds worth of ads (contrast that with cable TV, where you need to pay for the cable service *and still* have to watch several minutes of ads every half-hour). If you only look at the high end of the scale, yes, it looks like things have gotten more expensive; but if you look in the aggregate, there is far more stuff available for a far, far, far lower price tag now than at any point in human history. That is what digitization and automation has brought us and what it will continue to bring us in ever-greater quantities as we move into a more automated future. LinkPizza posted...Who is "they"? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:38:49 AM #199 | LinkPizza posted...Otherwise known as "figuratively", which is the opposite of "literally". Don't get upset at me because of your poor choice of words. LinkPizza posted...So far you've basically said, "No, u!" to every time I've pointed out a fallacy you've used, while failing to demonstrate that you actually know what it means. The Alleged Certainty (not "Centainty", whatever that is) fallacy is claiming that your viewpoint is true because "everyone knows it". At no point have I alleged that "everyone knows" that my viewpoint is correct. Again, please educate yourself on these terms before you try to use them and wind up being completely wrong. You'll save us both a lot of time. LinkPizza posted...What music example and where are you talking about physical things? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted...Because humans are involved in the process. Dude, I have pointed this out ages ago - money is a measure of human labour. If humans are completely removed from the process, then costs can and will drop to zero, but unless and until that happens, yes, things will still cost money. Right now, robots do not mine out a bunch of resources and turn it into a roomba with no human involvement. Factories that make cars still have humans overseeing the process. So yes, they still cost money and trying to pretend that those are comparables to what I've been arguing is being deliberately disingenuous. LinkPizza posted...Counterpoints: https://www.fastcompany.com/90236717/its-okay-to-love-robots https://360.here.com/how-human-like-will-the-robots-of-the-future-need-to-be https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/robots-human-relationships/583204/ LinkPizza posted...Go to a public library or Starbucks or one of a zillion other places that offer free wifi if you're that concerned about a small bill at the end of the month. More to the point, yes, those things are still free. If your friend buys you lunch, do you think, "This isn't *actually* free, since I bought him a birthday present last month and if I hadn't done that, he wouldn't be my friend and I wouldn't get this lunch"? No, those are two unrelated events. Or if you get a free sample at the supermarket, do you think, "This isn't free, I drove here and had to pay for gas for my car"? Of course not, that's dumb. When you pay for your phone, your power, your internet, you are paying for those things, not what you access with them. You might have to pay more for things online, or you might get things for free. Suggesting that it's not actually free because a phone bill exists is ridiculous hair-splitting and completely dodges the actual point of this tangent, which is that people are producing goods and spreading them at zero cost to the end user. That is only possible due to increases in technology. In ye olden times, if I wrote a book and I was inclined to give it away for free, I wouldn't be able to because simply making the book costs money. Nowadays, if I write a digital book I can make as many copies of it as I want, for zero dollars, because copy-and-paste is free. In theory, I could give a copy to every single person on the planet who had a device capable of reading it and neither they nor I would have to pay a dime. Robots are the next step in that evolution, where the last vestiges of human involvement in the supply chain can eventually be removed, allowing all costs to eventually reduce to zero. LinkPizza posted...Depends on your income bracket, honestly. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:37:39 AM #198 | LinkPizza posted...You literally just told a story in that paragraph. It's a personal anecdote, dude. Accept it. LinkPizza posted...One filled with biases, sampling errors, and insufficient sample size for statistical significance such that it would never be accepted as valid in any serious discussion, if indeed it actually happened at all. But sure, call it that if it makes you feel better. LinkPizza posted...Cool. All my friends agree with everything I say too. Are we done with this ridiculous tangent? I don't care whether or not your friends agree with you or not - they're not here, I'm not talking with them, and even if all of them actually did disagree with everything I said, that has nothing to do with whether or not I'm right. LinkPizza posted...Yes, because it is currently impossible to completely remove humans from that process. There are costs in that process because human labour is still involved, whether that's in designing the machines or mining the materials or performing maintenance and planning, humans still do plenty of tasks in even the most automated of processes. Costs and money will continue to exist for as long as humans are involved, however tangentially, in a process. Only when we reach a state where robots can do absolutely everything in a process will money cease to exist in a meaningful fashion. LinkPizza posted...Past events are not reliable predictors of future changes, not on the subject of something like technology. To demonstrate: If we were having this conversation in 1900, you would be saying that cars will never be widespread and we will continue to ride horses, because in 10,000 years of human history we've always rode horses and never had widespread cars. If we were having this conversation in 1950, you would be saying that personal computers will never be widespread, because in 10,000 years of human history we've never had that level of technology in our homes for personal use. If we were having this conversation in 1980, you would be saying that cell phones will never be widespread, because in 10,000 years of history we've always used traditional forms of communication and never had cell phones. Automation is a game changer. Like cars or smart phones or computers or the internet. You cannot use "history" to justify your views when talking about a new technological intervention. LinkPizza posted...There are no completely automated factories. Also, you're completely misconstruing my argument, but that doesn't really surprise me at this point. LinkPizza posted...Robots and resources will continue to cost money for precisely as long as humans are involved in their manufacture/maintenance/extraction. Is there a human mine supervisor? He needs to be paid, money still exists. Is there a technician responsible for troubleshooting the robots? He needs to be paid, money still exists. In a fully automated future, where the robots can mine things unsupervised, build themselves unsupervised, maintain themselves unsupervised, who is getting paid? Answer: no one, there are no humans involved in the process *to* pay and, therefore, no money necessary to pay them. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding this. It's really not a difficult concept, but you keep messing up the particulars. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:35:59 AM #197 | LinkPizza posted...Yes, it does, because the AI will then iterate off of its best attempt until it reaches a better one. Then it will iterate off of that recipe. Repeat continuously until it reaches "perfection" (or close enough to it that you're satisfied with the results). LinkPizza posted...The cost of what? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted...What is an oak stead and who is Company A? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted...I've somehow managed to avoid doing it, despite having to post dozens of quotes in this topic. Maybe you're just bad at this? LinkPizza posted...You're rehashing old arguments I've already debunked. I've already explained why additional self-checkout machines at Wal-Mart and Target would lead to diminishing returns (they cannot yet automate their entire work force, so adding additional self-checkout lines likely will not result in them being able to hire fewer workers and, as such, will not improve - and may actually hurt - their bottom line. LinkPizza posted...So you're admitting you don't know what a personal anecdote is and are just looking up the definition on the internet? LinkPizza posted...Which is a personal anecdote. Why? -Because it is your own personal experience, not something that is reflective of significant analysis or a greater truth. -Because it is unverifiable, since the only proof you have that these conversations took place and that you're accurately conveying those conversations is you. -Because it is not statistically significant - personal anecdotes never are. Your discussions with your colleagues, charming though they may be, are completely immaterial to this post. Again, I can claim that I've spoken to everyone in my city and they all agree with me, which would be its own personal anecdote and not in any way helpful for advancing the discussion, because I can't prove it and even if I could, my city doesn't speak for everyone. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:34:43 AM #196 | LinkPizza posted...Because they will. There's basically no way to stop it. I mean, if I could make a taste-analysis robot small enough to hide in my mouth (not unreasonable with future tech), how would any restaurant stop me from sampling their food to teach an AI? And moreover, why would they want to when there's far more money to be made from agreeing to teach an AI in return for a cut of the proceeds? LinkPizza posted...And yet, our financial sector still marches on, still ever-more digitized, and somehow the whole system hasn't collapsed yet. LinkPizza posted...Do you? Because you've demonstrated a complete absence of knowledge regarding AI in this topic, what with your, "They'll probably do this" or "It'll probably be like this" statements, all of which fly in the face of reality, something anyone with a modicum of knowledge about how AI works would be able to tell you in half a second. Seriously, if you're going to go all scorched-earth Luddite on this topic, at least pull your head out of the ground for long enough to learn something about it. An educated opinion is far superior to an uneducated one based on gut instincts and knee-jerk reactions, which is where at least 80% of your posts are coming from at the moment. Just for fun, I'm going to bold every random prediction and hypothetical you post for the rest of this response, just to show you how frequently you do it. LinkPizza posted...Implying that digital defences are not improving in lockstep with hacking technology. LinkPizza posted...Yeah your personal info like... how you like your food cooked. Oh no, so terrible! LinkPizza posted...They don't have a choice on whether to "allow" them or not. You can't copyright an idea. I will repeat that as many times as it takes for you to understand it. LinkPizza posted...Again, this is showing a pretty blatant misunderstanding about how AI works and learns. Educate yourself. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:33:26 AM #195 | LinkPizza posted...And? The existence of AI cooks doesn't mean you won't be able to cook your own food; it means if you want restaurant food, it will be better, faster, and cheaper. LinkPizza posted...And, again, having AI cooks does nothing to preclude this. If you want to cook a meal for someone, the police won't break down your door and confiscate your kitchen utensils. Cook all you want; all it means is that you have the option of having an AI do it instead, something most restaurants will go for because it's cheaper and more reliable (no need to bring on extra cooks for the dinner rush, then be forced to either send them home after only a few hours or pay them to stand around doing nothing). LinkPizza posted...You're back to arguing that AI are perfect and saying it's a bad thing, yet later in this chain you'll switch to arguing at the AI aren't perfect and saying that's a bad thing. Pick a lane. LinkPizza posted...No, it wouldn't. Why would it? Not everyone likes their dishes the same. An AI can make one dish a hundred different ways if you ask it to. Again, you're coming up with these bizarre predictions that have zero basis in reality and really only show that you don't understand how AI work or learn. AI programs learn *by changing things* then comparing the results. The won't keep making it the same unless you ask them to because you're happy with how it was made. LinkPizza posted...And an AI will let you do that without forcing you to travel somewhere different. You could try every burger in the world from the comfort of your local neighbourhood diner. Or hell, from the comfort of your own home if you are so inclined. LinkPizza posted...You can just say, "Make it more like this," and give it an example of the burger you actually did like and the AI will figure out the rest. That sort of goal-based learning is actually something AI are really good at. LinkPizza posted...No, it won'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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/23/21 4:31:31 AM #194 | LinkPizza posted... Please do me a favor and read before posting statements like, "I need context." Because almost every time you say that, context was in the next sentence or two. At the very least, context clues will be there.I'm not going to scroll back a dozen posts to try and decipher what random sentence you're responding to based on "context clues." Provide context or a quote. LinkPizza posted... You can copyright recipes to an extent. But how the law works is different from normal copyright laws.No, it doesn't. You cannot copyright an idea, full stop. All you can copyright is how that idea is expressed. For instance, I cannot copyright apple pie just because I came up with a great apple pie recipe. If someone else, through trial and error, happens to come up with the exact recipe I use, they are free to use it. If this was not the case, every dish in the world would be subject to copyright right now and no cook would be able to make anything without a lawyer present to ensure they were in compliance with rights. You can copyright a recipe, but only in the sense that someone else can't steal that recipe, put it in their own cookbook and sell it for profit; someone is free to follow that recipe to the letter in order to cook a dish and sell it (or to try and "reverse-engineer" your dish by tasting it and trying to work out what you did). That's why places like Coke and KFC famously guard their recipes - if someone else could work out how to make them (which an AI would be far better equipped to do than a human), there would be no penalty to someone selling knock-off Coke or KFC using the same recipes. If they could copyright the dishes, they would simply do so and save themselves the hassle. LinkPizza posted... And will probably change when AI that can make certain food based off other foods become popular. Especially since that would cost restaurants money.And make other restaurants money, so don't expect food industry reps to stand in the way of this. LinkPizza posted... So, most restaurants won't take to an AI learning how to cook their $20 burger to sell at McDonalds for a couple bucks. Not to mention, some people go to certain restaurants for food cooked to taste a certain way. If you've gone to other restaurants, then you know that certain foods at certain recipes may have a more specific taste. And many restaurants aren't going to want their recipe to be used at other places.Whether they want to or not is immaterial. It will happen all the same because there's really no way to stop people with AI from sampling food and using an AI to analyze it unless they, y'know, stop selling food altogether. LinkPizza posted... And I think the law will uphold that.Based on what? Again, you can't copyright an idea. Even if you tried, it's impossible to enforce. LinkPizza posted... Or riots might ensue.Yes, people will be rioting because AI gives them affordable, high-quality meals at a price no human cook could ever match. That makes total sense. LinkPizza posted... And 99% percent of the population in way too high of a number for people who don't have someone to cook for them.I feel confident in saying that 99% of households do not contain a restaurant-quality chef, which is what this originally stemmed from, nevermind one skilled enough to make any dish to the exact specifications of the household members. --- 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! |
| Topic | Who doesn't support a two state solution? |
| darkknight109 05/18/21 6:37:43 PM #29 | Kyuubi4269 posted... That's what 73 years of degeneracy does, makes people absolutely sick of them. If only Israel was allowed free reign for a week, the problem would be solved.I thought advocating for genocide was against the board ToS... --- 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! |
| Topic | Liz Cheney ousted from GOP leadership position for saying Biden won in 2020 |
| darkknight109 05/14/21 7:31:08 AM #56 | Zeus posted... By publicly criticizing him throughout most of her tenure and throwing him to the wolves whenever she could.Let's see some examples of this, if it was so frequent. Zeus posted... If you're calling the countless people here and other places who pushed that agenda nobodies, keep in mind that celebs and even politicians pushed those fictitious claims. And the media frequently referred to it as a "stolen election" in their promotional packages.As above, let's see some examples of this if so many people were making the claim that the election was fraudulent. Zeus posted... They went a LOT further than that. And more importantly, the same sources that were so big on talking about Russian interference in 2016 were pretty quiet about Iranian and Chinese interference on behalf of Biden, even though they still managed to bring up Russia in 2020.Did you even read your own source? "It also follows complaints by Democratic lawmakers that US intelligence agencies are not releasing information to the public about foreign interference in this year's vote." "The release of the statement comes after members of the Democratic party voiced concern about attempts by foreign nations to influence the vote. US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday said the intelligence about current efforts to sway the vote "should be available to the American people"." It's weird - almost like the Democrats are trying to call out interference in a federal election, even when it benefits them. Novel concept. (Notably, that article also contains several quotes from Trump denying that Russia helped him in 2016 and was continuing to try and help him in 2020). Zeus posted... >Talks about pretending things are trueinsurrection noun "a violent uprising against an authority or government" So what do you call it when several thousand Republicans attack police and invade the capitol building with the intention of stopping the democratic process that would confirm Biden's vote and see him officially made president-elect? --- 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! |
| Topic | There's a warrant out for Boogie2988's arrest |
| darkknight109 05/14/21 7:17:12 AM #52 | Mead posted... The guy has a lot of health problems so Im surprised they put his bail at $5000$5000 is a pretty low bail, given the circumstances. --- 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! |
| Topic | There's a warrant out for Boogie2988's arrest |
| darkknight109 05/13/21 7:15:30 PM #47 | DragonClaw01 posted... Childish insults are protected under the first amendment.I'm not a lawyer, but it's worth noting that the first amendment has limits and doesn't cover harassment. I have no idea if coming onto private property and shouting insulting taunts and being vaguely threatening meets the criteria for harassment, but at the very least the dude would be trespassing if Boogie asked him to leave. --- 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! |
| Topic | Liz Cheney ousted from GOP leadership position for saying Biden won in 2020 |
| darkknight109 05/13/21 1:57:35 PM #39 | Zeus posted... ...overlooking the fact that throughout Trump's presidency she had very frequently worked to undermine him and thus weaken her own party.By having a voting record that was one of the most loyal to Trump's agenda in all of the GOP? The woman being put forward as her replacement, by the by, voted against Trump frequently, including against his signature tax cuts. Zeus posted... (and it's worth noting that you, BS0, and others spent the last 4 years lying that those elections were fraudulent, despite the fact that the voting was overwhelmingly in person with stricter standards than the last election).No one suggested the 2016 elections were fraudulent. This is revisionist history from salty conservatives trying to "Same thing, both sides" some alternative facts to support their narrative. At best, the left suggested that the 2016 election was tainted by Russian interference (which it was, as Mueller's report explicitly proved) or was unfair because more people voted for Clinton and the EC is a moronic system that has been so far perverted from its original intended purpose that it effectively only exists as an anti-majoritarian method to allow one party to behave anti-democratically. No one, however, suggested that Trump did not actually win the states he won or get the requisite number of EC votes to become president. The left's argument was that the electoral system that placed Donald Trump in the presidency was undemocratic, not that the election itself was fraudulent. Not that I would expect you to understand the difference or acknowledge it long enough to realize it scuppers your narrative. Zeus posted... *Cue laugh track*Even pretending this was true for a second (it isn't), that still doesn't compare to the party that literally staged an insurrection to try and prevent the orderly procession of legitimate electoral results, which is the sort of banana republic shit you usually only see out of third world failed democratic states, rather than from a country that likes to pretend that it's the freest and most democratic nation in the world (a claim that proves more spurious by the year). --- 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! |
| Topic | ITT: JRPG series that have kind-of disappeared |
| darkknight109 05/10/21 5:40:43 PM #41 | Kimbos_Egg posted... manaThe Trials of Mana/Seiken Densetsu 3 remake just came out last year. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:24:04 AM #175 | LinkPizza posted... It could easily happen.No, it couldn't. You claiming that it could is simply proving that you do not understand how this technology works. LinkPizza posted... And are you serious.About what? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted... Sorry you cant seem to remember our conversation.I am not going to remember the details of a conversation I had with an internet rando multiple years ago. If you can remember every online conversation you've ever had, multiple years after it took place, good for you but I have other things that tend to take priority in my memory. LinkPizza posted... You also even said my bus company would be getting self-driving bus soonI can categorically say I did not. If you want to contest that, let's see your source. Something more reliable than your memory, please, given that you've already misremembered several discussions within this topic, which is several years newer than the conversation you're referencing. LinkPizza posted... And Its only a couple of years old. 2018 at the earliest Early 2020 at the latest And I mean early. Like it would have be one of the first two months, IIRCThis makes me doubt that memory you seem so proud of. You can remember details of a conversation that happened multiple years ago, but not what year it happened? LinkPizza posted... If theres just being showed off or tested, its probably easy to get around.Some are presently in active service and are driving regular routes. LinkPizza posted... And Im not confusing my ill-informed hypotheses with actual factual information, because youre the one with the ill-informed hypotheses. Mine are at least based on logic.The "logic" that "money" allows a city to dodge federal law? I'm not sure if you're up to speed on the ADA, but it doesn't just require that handicapped people be provided service, it requires that their service not be appreciably different than what would be provided to an able-bodied individual. You can't just "call a spare ride" for them or say that they have to catch the big bus that will be along in ten minutes; if you are providing transportation, you must be able to transport individuals in wheelchairs with no difference in response time to an able-bodied person. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:23:36 AM #174 | LinkPizza posted... My accident is basically a car swerving to avoid one car, causing another to swerve to avoid it.Which human drivers do as well, so this isn't a valid complaint to make against AI. You actually do a great job at scuttling your own argument starting here: LinkPizza posted... Either way, its a very real, since cars already do swerve to avoid accidents....by admitting that this is an extant problem and therefore not an example of AIs making things worse. And here: LinkPizza posted... Cant say whether it would be worse or not since it could change depending on what happens, though....by admitting that you don't even know if this would be worse than a human accident (it wouldn't). LinkPizza posted... And thats if the camera sees it.Self-driving car cameras have full 360 degree view. They have to in order for the car to function. LinkPizza posted... And its possible other cars dont stop to hand over their recording if they werent involved.Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. Or are you back to arguing that legalities don't matter now that it doesn't benefit your argument? LinkPizza posted... Like maybe the window has a glare from the angle the camera sees it, but can be seen easier by the driver of said car looking at another car with a sleepy driver.Easily countered by saying you could have a glare that a human driver can't see through but an AI camera can. LinkPizza posted... So, its not a known fact as the technology could end up not being better.It is a known fact because the technology is *already* better and is continually improving at a rate multiple orders of magnitude faster than humans improve via evolution. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:23:02 AM #173 | LinkPizza posted... Why are you guys fighting to be slaves? Well be under the control of everybody who owns the AIs.Nobody owns "AI". Again, "AI" is an idea and you cannot control an idea. Nobody owns ideas; only goods and ways that idea is expressed. This is why, for instance, Microsoft cannot stop third party word processors that can create .docx files. If someone has figured out how to write code that can do that, Microsoft cannot claim ownership of that code; the only code Microsoft owns is the code it itself has written. Hence why there are several completely free "pseudo-Office" program suites available online that perform largely the same function as Microsoft Office and are even fully compatible with it, but do not require you to pay Microsoft a subscription fee. LinkPizza posted... And even though sound engineers can use certain sounds to elicit certain response, the songs can still sound like the band that plays them.Which AI is already capable of mimicking flawlessly, hence why we have "new" songs from Nirvana despite Kurt Cobain having been dead for over 25 years. LinkPizza posted... As for your business, youre the one who said they owned a small business for seven years and was lucky if there's enough money in the business account to cover my expenses for that *month*. So, it sounds like you werent the best business owner by your own admission Thats based on what you said.No, that's based on your own incorrect interpretation of my words. The reason I make little money on my small business is because: a) I am in a market with few customers are available b) My business is in an industry where profit margins are typically very slim, unless you happen to be one of the "big business" equivalents c) This is not my main source of income, so profit is not of paramount importance to me That's it. You really shouldn't make those sorts of wild assumptions on something you do not know about unless you want to look foolish as a result. LinkPizza posted... You can say I have no experience running a business, but I actually have some from her.Oh, is that how it works? I guess that means I have experience being a professional hockey player, because I watch them every Saturday. LinkPizza posted... My question that still hasnt been answered is why theyre arent more, though? They have 4 self-checkouts, which are always busy. And like a couple cashiers. Why not take a couple of those always empty lanes and turn them into more self-checkout lanes? You can get more customers through faster. Which may even tempt some people to buy more since they know the lines may move faster since there are more lanes. But they dont And why is that?Good question, given that you've already conceded that the self-checkout lanes are popular and, therefore, work. I suggest it's better aimed at the executives of those stores - they probably have the cost-benefit analyses to answer your concerns. LinkPizza posted... And I was talking about parts in the junkyard. Not ordering them Which should have been evident since I just mentioned building a car out of junkyard parts.Sorry, I didn't realize you were trying to win the debate by heavily constraining the bounds so as to make any conclusion ultimately pointless. In that case, I'll counter by saying that you can build a computer out of parts from an electronics catalogue but you could never build a car from that same catalogue. LinkPizza posted... Obviously, theres not a video of my scenario because, as I told you before, self-driving cars arent common yet. For my scenario to happen, self-driving cars would have to be at least semi-common. Its like youre not even reading what I post.I'm reading what you post, I'm just deliberately filtering out the nonsense. You're making an unfounded assertion based on future self-driving cars - the capabilities of which aren't even known at this point since, by your own admission, you're talking about technology that's decades in the future - that isn't backed up by anything grounded in reality and is your own hypothetical that you've made up and are now expecting others to accept as valid. If you want me to believe this scenario has a basis in reality, you'll need proof that it's actually a valid concern. Proof that you don't have and CAN'T have, because it *isn't* a valid concern. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:22:32 AM #172 | LinkPizza posted... Theyll probably make the games and let the AI help or whateverIf they want to, sure. No one is saying that humans will be *barred* from doing these things in the future, simply that they will do it as hobbyists rather than because they have to have a job in order to survive. LinkPizza posted... Except its not a simple statement of fact since all they use to do before (and probably still do) and take other ideas and use those to make stuff.What isn't a simple statement of fact? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted... Like how they did with those stories and videos I saw It was just an absurd mix of everything it took in instead of using what it took in to create something newSure... because you're looking at a present day AI, while talking about future tech and making the bizarre assertion that they're one and the same. That's sort of like saying that because my computer doesn't have a 100 terrabyte hard drive *right now* I will never be able to own a computer that has a 100 terrabyte hard drive. Can an AI program a decent video game today with no human interaction? No, that technology is decades in the future right now. Which is why this entire tangent was predicated on occurring in a fully automated future, something that isn't going to happen any time soon. You seem to have forgotten that and are pretending like this discussion about video game tech is based on current-day AI, not future-AI. LinkPizza posted... Also, I obviously dont think they are perfect. I think they wont make mistakes because the humans will be there to keep an eye on things, not because they are perfect.Ah, so your argument is, "AI aren't perfect but will never make mistakes, because the humans watching them are perfect." That's impressive because you managed to construct an entire argument based on two incorrect pretenses. LinkPizza posted... And I had some civilian friends, but most of them of trouble.Please translate this sentence into English. LinkPizza posted... Why would I not hang out with them and force my self to find other friends who I probably wont like.You tell me - you're the one who's suggesting that the only way you can interact with your friends is through work. If that is not the case, then there's no problem with you not having a job to do in the automated future. You'll still be able to hang out with your friends, it just won't be at work - something you've already admitted is not a precondition to you hanging out. LinkPizza posted... I cant actually do my job as a hobby if AI took it. Nor would I want to.Then what's the problem? You're behaving like a toddler at this point. "I wanna do my job!" "Then you can keep doing it as a hobby." "No! I don't wanna do it as a hobby, I want someone to make me do it!" Seriously, if your job isn't your ideal way of passing time, then a fully automated future (which will eventually happen) is an upgrade, because you can start doing whatever you do like. Hobbies - old and new - hanging out with friends, visiting exotic destination in your self-driving vehicle, all for free. You have no reason to cower in fear of the future. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:21:46 AM #171 | LinkPizza posted... Unless youre counting stealing as free. Because I was talking about legallyWere you? Legalities didn't seem to trouble you in that discussion about speeding up there. LinkPizza posted... But I think I meant plant in my post.You "think" you meant plant? Shouldn't you know what your own argument is? If you aren't even sure what you were supposed to be saying, it clearly wasn't a very strong argument to begin with. LinkPizza posted... We dont pay the animals or crops. We pay the farmer who owns them.Only true if there actually is a farmer that owns them. Even today, you can get meat for free - just head out to your local natural area of choice, bring down a deer and enjoy free venison for the winter. Or head out to the ocean, haul in some fish and have a nice dinner. LinkPizza posted... Doesnt mean it will be cheaper for the people buying it from them. Why would it be?Because they will be in competition with others who are willing to subside on a lower profit margin. Which, y'know, is basic economics that appears to have gone over your head. LinkPizza posted... We will still have to pay the farmer taking care of the animals and growing the crops. Do you understand now? And nothing will be freeUntil the robots can take over the work, at which point it will absolutely be free. You keep contesting this, but it doesn't make you any less wrong. LinkPizza posted... As for go, playing aggressively might mean capturing prisoners rather than trying to make a live string/group. Where someone going to the latter is probably playing more passively. Or you could be playing defensively, trying to stop them from taking your strings.Please demonstrate that you know what a string is. Also, please explain how the play-styles you just referenced constitute "playing aggressively" and how that pertains to AI play. LinkPizza posted... As for video games, I dont see them every trying to do that.Trying to do what? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:21:14 AM #170 | LinkPizza posted... Porn is freeWhich is an admission that I'm right. LinkPizza posted... Online forums and social media actually sell your info, too, AFAIK. And have ads all over the place.And are free. LinkPizza posted... Podcast are freeThank you for agreeing with me again. LinkPizza posted... And I think most video conferencing items are free, but I cant be sureSure you can - by checking yourself. If you're going to contest the point, at least bring some actual evidence to bear. And you seem to have completely missed the fact that just because there's paid versions of many of the above items doesn't disprove my original point, which is that you can get all of the above, completely for free. LinkPizza posted... And you know what else isnt free? The internet.If you can't afford ~$30.00 a month for an entry-level internet plan, you have much bigger problems in your life than anything we're talking about in this topic. LinkPizza posted... If they weren't making money, many of these services wouldn't be free...But they are making money and it is free. LinkPizza posted... So, did you bump your head?Did you? You literally just admitted there are free options for everything I said was available for free. You literally just spent an entire topic admitting I'm right and you apparently were too blind to even realize it. You spend several sentences at the end of this paragraph - where, again, you repeatedly admitted I was right - trying to save face and claim I was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you explicitly admitted so yourself. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:20:37 AM #169 | LinkPizza posted... For stuff online, many have watermarks because youre basically stealing them from someone else.And many more do not, because they are available for anyone to use. LinkPizza posted... Videos on YouTube are free (except for the ones that arent). And even then, thats only because they still get paid from ads. If they didnt get ads, it wouldnt be free.But they do get ads, so they are free. LinkPizza posted... And the only reason email (like Gmail) is free is because theyre making money by selling your personal information. So, not changing you makes them money. If they didnt sell your info, it would probably cost something.But, as it turns out, it currently costs nothing. LinkPizza posted... Stories also depend. Stories in books usually cost money.But the ones online are usually free. LinkPizza posted... TV shows are usually on a cable subscription that you have to pay for.Except for the ones available online, for free. LinkPizza posted... Video games are rarely free.https://store.steampowered.com/search/?maxprice=free Look, free games! Over 10,000 of them! LinkPizza posted... And the price has recently risen.The average price of a video game has literally never been lower. The price has only "recently risen" if you're looking at top-end, triple-A titles. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:20:12 AM #168 | LinkPizza posted... Where do you find free Roombas, because most people are out there paying for themIn the automated future where I talked about the presence of a robot that could mine materials for and construct a Roomba with no external aid. If you were quoting the posts you were responding to, you'd probably understand this better instead of getting confused by mistakenly conflating multiple different arguments and responding to a point you think I made, but never actually did. LinkPizza posted... And they wont, as they rather make bigger profitsWhich doesn't explain why there's more free shit available now than there ever has been at any point in human history. Your point of view only makes sense in a magical world where, ironically, everyone behaves like robots and there is no altruistic desire to better the human race, despite that being a fairly common element in fields of scientific development. LinkPizza posted... Not to mention, with the amount of people who dont trust them, many people will avoid stores with them, only shopping at store without them."Many people". That's a sentiment that will last precisely as long as it takes for them to notice that the robot store is selling things at half the price as the human store, because they don't have to pay wages to their workers and can therefore sell things at a price that no human-run store could hope to match. Again, the Luddites thought people would be willing to support businesses that refused to use industrial-manufactured goods. They were wrong then, just as you are wrong now. LinkPizza posted... And not all the things you listed are free.Literally everything I listed can be found online, for free, right now, completely legally. LinkPizza posted... For example, many music services cost money like a monthly fee.Youtube doesn't and there's lots of songs on there that the creators put up for anyone to listen to. LinkPizza posted... For pictures, it depends on what type of pictures.Google Image Search can get you pictures on whatever subject you like and they are 100% free to download. LinkPizza posted... To print out pictures, you either pay a store or buy the materials to print as home.Then you're not paying for the pictures, you're paying for the material to print them out. As it turns out, most people don't need hard copies of their pictures. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:19:27 AM #167 | LinkPizza posted... And many people wouldnt want to pay a monthly/yearly/etc subscription to get a car to take them places when they could just drive themselves for lessA Zipcar membership currently costs $70 a year for the membership itself and cars can be as low as $14 an hour (only for the time you use them), which includes gas, insurance, maintenance, and roadside assistance. That's actually less on a per-km basis than owning a car is and that price only goes down if the cars are self-driving (insurance and roadside assistance get cheaper on account of not having to be used as much, while fuel and maintenance go down with the shift to electric). LinkPizza posted... And while you can work on both, splitting the work like that slows down both.Both of what? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted... The reason Im using future tense is because they arent common yet.What aren't common yet? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted... they are still a future tech as of right nowThey literally aren't. Something you can buy today is, by definition, not future tech. LinkPizza posted... And its $25,000 for that? That seems like a rip-off. What can it even do?Whatever you want to teach it to do. LinkPizza posted... And means it would need someone watching it, or checking up on it often... Also, if its that much and can barely do anything, then the ones that can actually do something will be expensive as fuck. It seems I sorely underestimated the price. That will probably be too expensive for normal people to buy for what it does.At the moment? Yes. This is still early days for those sorts of robots. In the same way that early computers and cell phones were hideously-expensive rich person toys, that's where this particular field of learning robots is at right now. The point is not that they could take over every human job tomorrow, it's that the tech is out there and it's being fine-tuned into something that will be more productive and less expensive in the years to come. LinkPizza posted... And you do realize you have to buy one, right? Because that means youre still paying for it. You do understand how that works, right? So you are paying for the Roomba. You do understand that, right?You do understand that's not what I said, right? You do understand you're mixing up multiple different arguments right now, right? You do understand that, right? --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:18:49 AM #166 | LinkPizza posted... It can even help slightly with running late or shorter trips.At the risk of increasing the probability and consequences of getting in a crash, sure. You're honestly making the point for AI drivers even stronger with this side-tangent claiming that you should be allowed to break the law because you can't budget your driving time correctly. If you need to speed because you're running late, maybe leave yourself enough time to get to where you're going on schedule next time. LinkPizza posted... As for not owning them, most people probably wont actually like that.What makes you think that? You say "many people" or "most people" all over the place in your post, which is you making assumptions with no data backing them up. This is another logical fallacy - specifically, the False Consensus effect. The simple fact is, car ownership is dropping - particularly new car ownership. 2010 was the rate of highest vehicle ownership in North America; since then, for the first time in history, car ownership rates have actually declined. The rise of ride sharing apps like Uber and car shares like Zipcar is seeing fewer people actually buying their own car. LinkPizza posted... And people forget stuff in cars all the time. Which would suck.If an AI is driving the car, it would alert you the second you tried to leave if something got left behind. Which is a definite boon given that something that people occasionally forget in their car is a sleeping baby and there have been numerous tragic instances of babies overheating in cars because a parent forgot to drop them off at daycare before heading off to work. LinkPizza posted... Like going out to eat after school, or going somewhere after work.If you desperately need to store something in a car short term, you would be able to do so in this model (in the same way that if you use something like Zipcar, the car is yours until you are ready to release it back to the "fleet"). LinkPizza posted... People are already fine with owning cars that are in their garage or driveway.I'm not. I live on an island and have to own two vehicles because there's no car ferry between my home and the mainland. I pay for parking on the mainland for my car and have a garage for my home. If I could get rid of both vehicles and replace them with self-driving autos, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It would save me money in parking and maintenance, I'd get another 500 square feet in my home to remodel into actual living space, and I'd lose nothing in the bargain. Meanwhile, there is an entire class of people for whom car ownership is not viable due to costs and who rely on public transit to get anywhere. With self-driving cars and the death of car ownership, the full advantages of having a car could finally be in reach for those people, adding hours onto their day from not having to constantly wait for/on a bus. LinkPizza posted... And many arent going to only want to drive it to a specialty track or place. Many just like driving.There's that "many people" quote again. You're starting to sound like Donald Trump at this point. And, frankly, the world doesn't care if you "just like driving". You can do it on a specialty track if it's that important to you. I'm sure there were people who "just liked riding horses" back when those were the most common transportation method; that doesn't mean horse riders are allowed on city roads today. LinkPizza posted... I literally wont ever ride in a self-driving car. 100%.The day may come when you don't have a choice. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:18:17 AM #165 | LinkPizza posted... As for digital, people were pretty sure they would replace film for most people. And it actually probably helped their profits.That's why Kodak, the leading film company of the 20th century and a former Fortune 500 company, saw huge profits in their shift to digita- Oh, no, wait, they went bankrupt in 2012 and were forced to exit the photography industry altogether, with the shift to digital being cited as the primary cause. LinkPizza posted... The reason Im using that tense is because not all of them are built yet.The reason why you're using what tense? This sentence is missing information. Quote what you're responding to or provide enough context such that it is not ambiguous. LinkPizza posted... Just because some know how to program doesnt mean they are do.Um... what? LinkPizza posted... And I dont care if an AI could do it better. If I have to give it control, it better be perfect.This is such a ridiculous point of view. Like, if you had to drive somewhere in a foreign city where you didn't know where anything was and your friend who actually knew the city offered to drive for you instead, would you adamantly refuse to let him drive because he didn't know every street perfectly? No? Then perhaps you can see why it's really stupid to demand AI be perfect before letting them replace humans at tasks they are objectively superior at performing. LinkPizza posted... And the fact is, people are still currently employed in a field an AI can work in. And even after they start making AI, people will still be employed in those fields.Luddites said the same thing back in the original fight about automation - that the industrial process simply couldn't replace the heart and soul of a human worker and that people would demand the higher quality that came with something individually crafted by a human. We know how that argument eventually turned out (hint: the Luddites were wrong). LinkPizza posted... And if you think driving will be banned anytime soon, youre delusional.At no point did I say driving would be banned anytime soon, just that it almost certainly will be at some point in the future. You should quote the posts you're responding to so you don't make embarrassing errors like this. LinkPizza posted... Which would actually be fine as long people can keep their jobsPoint blank: they won't. Industrial vehicles will be some of the first to be automated, because there is a greater financial driver for it. If a company can replace a $60,000 a year long-haul trucker with an automated truck that can drive 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with no need for time off for illness, vacation, or even sleep and whose only costs are in the initial purchase and in vehicle maintenance that would need to be performed anyways, you can bet that they're going to make the switch in a heartbeat. And there's really nothing you can do to stop this from happening. Automation is technology, which is fundamentally just an idea and you can't ban an idea. This is going to happen and it's going to happen a lot sooner than you seem to think it will, so I suggest you start getting used to the idea. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:17:40 AM #164 | LinkPizza posted... You say that its cost effective to get the new machines that are 10x cheaper, but that Wal-Mart and Target (who can definitely afford it) arent getting more because they cant afford it?Where did I say that Wal-Mart and Target specifically can't afford automated checkouts? LinkPizza posted... If it would save them money in the long run, theyd do it. They arent for a reason. I do have a few theories on why, but this is what Im saying. Youre saying they would be 10x cheaper. So, the stores that can afford should get them. Especially since bigger stores usually look for the most money, even over time. At the same time, youre saying my they arent, but have no real reason other than they cant afford them.You're deliberately misconstruing my arguments at this point. This is where actually quoting what you're responding to would help you, because it would highlight that you're getting two different points confused. I said - in response to a different tangent you went off on - that small stores cannot afford automated checkouts because the costs are front-loaded. Wal-Mart and Target are not small stores. That's not a difficult point to understand. You'll also note that every Wal-Mart and Target you go in today has automated checkout lanes. They do keep some human cashiers on hand - and I already explained the reason why, if you actually go back and read my points on the subject - but not nearly as many as they once did. LinkPizza posted... And they are not personal anecdotes. Personal anecdote would be me telling a story that I think would relate to everyone.A personal anecdote is you sharing your experience. That's it. And that's exactly what you did, whether you want to admit it or not. Even if you talked to everyone you know, that is not statistically significant (nevermind talking about sampling bias), nor relevant to the debate. If you don't see the problem with what you did, I'll counter by saying I asked everyone I know and everyone in the city I live in and they all agree with me on every one of my points. Now do you think that's a valid way for me to prove my point? LinkPizza posted... That's how it's going to work since that's how it always has worked...This is basically your argument in a nutshell and it proves how shortsighted it is. It's confirmation bias incarnate - the idea that just because something has always held true, it will continue to hold true in the future, despite the fact that truths underpinning it are changing. 500 years ago, someone would tell you that the only way you could ever lead a country is by being born into the royal family or leading a violent overthrow of the king. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history. 150 years ago, people would tell you that horses were one of a country's most important asset because of their critical importance to agriculture, transportation, and warfare. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history. 70 years ago, people - including some computer experts - would tell you that there was no reason why anyone would ever need to own a personal computer. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history. Things change. Always. Even big things change. Suggesting that "well, money has always been around, so money always will be around" is showing wilful blindness to the possibility of change when the fundamental rules of commerce break down. LinkPizza posted... And literally everyone knows it. Except for some people on this site like you...-Says "literally everyone knows it" -Immediately gives example of people who correctly identify it as false. Notably, even if this is true you are once again engaging in a logical fallacy - specifically the Alleged Certainty fallacy. Even if you were correct and everyone did believe your point was true (they don't), that wouldn't make it any more correct (because it isn't). If everyone believed that lemons were purple, that wouldn't suddenly make any of them correct. LinkPizza posted... Because there's no way people just start giving stuff away for free just because their robots made it for them. That's not how it's ever worked.That's literally how it works right now. As an example, you can go on Youtube and listen to a song written by a robot for free. You can download 3D models that people have made - with the assistance of robots - for free. The internet has widely expanded the availability of "free" stuff, to the point where it is already possible to live a fulfilling and complete life while expending zero dollars beyond what is needed to pay for your food and lodgings. And you think robots, AI, and automation aren't going to expand that trend even further? That goes against every economic trend on the subject we've seen in the last 30 years. LinkPizza posted... The problem is you think people will make things cheap and undercut a lot. Problem is, they still need to make money.To do what? If the robots are mining all the materials, doing all the fabrication, transporting all the goods, and handling any repairs/disposal, who do you need to pay? There are no humans involved in that process that require compensation. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/09/21 4:17:08 AM #163 | LinkPizza posted... I would say that many.That many what? LinkPizza posted... There are also people at local places that have their own special recipes. So super fancy places and local places. And even some of the restaurant chains have people who are better than some of their normal chefs. I think youre vastly underestimating how many local restaurants there are. Or how many of those special places there are. Or even how many chefs at chains will add their own special twist to the recipes. It changes more when you actually know how many chefs wont actually spill the beans on their special ingredientAt a certain point, it won't matter because an AI can simply experiment until it gets a comparable result, which is how things like GANs work. LinkPizza posted... Some people have friends or family members who will cook for them like that. It just depends on the person and their relationship. Like maybe a son cooks for his mom and other family members. Or someone cooks for their best friend who they have known since they were babies. And many husbands and wives may cook for each other if one is actually a good cookCool. And for the other 99% of the population that doesn't fit in these categories, a robot will do the same job or better. LinkPizza posted... Making the robots a network is actually a really bad idea. They can easily be hacked if on a network.Which is why no banks are connected to the internet - can you imagine the disaster if banks were network and could be easily hacked? Oh, wait, nevermind, all banks are networked. If a bank can manage a secure system despite handling some of the most sensitive information a person is likely to have, I'm pretty sure a robot that will remembers how you like your steak cooked will be pretty safe. LinkPizza posted... Having a robot make it means a make it could end up making everything taste the same, which is no funYou can ask a robot to make a recipe differently. Again, you're vastly underestimating the scope and scale of modern computational power if you think a robot can only learn to cook one thing one way. A cooking network could store the cooking knowledge of hundreds of the world's finest chefs. It could cook you a three-star meal every single night, according to the recipes it learned studying master chefs and not once would it need to repeat a meal if you didn't want it to. You could compare how the same meal can be cooked differently. And no, you don't need to guide it by saying something like, "Add more cilantro to this meal next time." - you could if you wanted to, but you could just as easily tell the AI, "I liked the way you made it last time better." That's very useful feedback for an algorithm and helps it zero in on how you actually like your meals prepared. LinkPizza posted... I saw where you said better can be slower. But people dont want slower. They want faster.People "want" a lot of things, but aren't willing to pay the cost. People say they don't want clothes made in sweatshops, but will still race to buy shirts on sale that could not possibly have been made ethically with the price tag they want. People say they want to stop air pollution and global warming, then balk when they realize an electric car is more expensive than the basic model. People talk about how terrible companies like Wal-Mart or EA or Amazon are, but those companies are still making massive profits year-over-year, so clearly people don't hate them enough to actually stop buying their stuff. If Company A offers a human checkout and rival Company B offers an automated one, yet Company B is charging half the price of Company A, Company B *will* be more successful and that is true even if Company A's checkout is faster. LinkPizza posted... And even then, dont act like youre a better quoter.I am by default, because I'm the only one who is actually using quotes properly at this point. You keep complaining about how much work it is to quote somebody - dude, it takes two seconds. You highlight the part of the post that you're already reading and writing a response to that you want to respond to and click a little button at the bottom. Bam - done. That's the effort you're saying is too much work, despite writing up these massive walls of text. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/01/21 4:27:12 AM #155 | LinkPizza posted... And here you are quoting badly again to change my words.Where? Again, provide context to your quotes or I have no way to figure out what the hell you're referring to. LinkPizza posted... I said, And I dont remember the whole conversation. But I remember our long conversation. That means I dont remember what everyone else was talking about, but I remember the conversation we had. So please dont put words in my mouth. Especially when I gave you the sentence. Bad quoters like you are horrible when it comes to stuff like that. I dont remember what others were talking about, but I literally said, But I remember our long conversation. Be betterSpare me the Trump quotes. You did not give me the sentence. Don't try and change what you actually said when your post bringing up stuff from the old topic is still right there in Post 109. "Which is what I said in the other topic however long ago that was." "But not how they would be secured without a driver like you said in (previous topic)..." "And without a driver, since that's how you said it would be in that other topic, IIRC." You're claiming I said all these things and bringing up a conversation that I have no way to reference. You didn't claim that a topic merely existed (which would have been fine), you expected me to answer for posts that you claim I wrote without actually providing quotes or references to the post in question. For a topic that's now literally years old, that is completely unreasonable. LinkPizza posted... Theres nowhere to safely strap them down so their chair doesnt move. So, obviously, they arent.So how are they getting around the mandatory legal requirement enshrined in federal law in the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires them to provide service to handicapped people? LinkPizza posted... These are the actual factsYou are confusing your own ill-informed hypotheses with actual factual information. Please learn the definition of these words before you come back to the topic. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/01/21 4:26:48 AM #154 | LinkPizza posted... They are in the right lane and the only way to avoid them is to go to the left (could be a sidewalk with people or even a gas station with people and cars). But the left lane has more traffic. Because it has to be done fast, it swerves to the left toward another self-driving car. And that one has to swerve to the left to avoid that car. It could easily get to the point where one cant swerve without causing an accident. Or one of them dont register the signal to move left. Or that a human driver was to the left, which they either hit or dont swerve to hit causing an accident with the other self-driving car. In the end, its possible the first car that swerved didnt know about the accident that occurred, thus didnt stop Especially in the human took control because it swerved and they got spooked by it.OK... so how does the presence of a human driver instead of an AI in this situation somehow change the scenario? With what you've just laid out, you're going to have an accident whether it's humans driving or AI. The AI crash is, honestly, probably going to be less severe, because this network of cars is all talking to each other saying, "Oh crap, need to make an emergency lane change, please move over," where humans don't have the ability to do that. And if the first car drives off, so what? The rest of the self-driving cars all have cameras recording what happened, including the license plate of the car that drove away. If there's an insurance issue, the owner of that car can be contacted and brought into the process as appropriate. LinkPizza posted... But Im sure self-driving cars would try not to hit each other, soThen you're wrong, much as you have been about this whole scenario. Self-driving cars will hit another self-driving car if they calculate it is the safest option available. For instance, if they have the option of hitting a pedestrian or another vehicle, they are programmed to choose the vehicle because it is less likely to result in a serious injury or a fatality. Notably, if you've ever taken a defensive driving course you'll know that's the exact advice given to humans in the same scenario: hit a vehicle instead of a person, swerve right into a ditch instead of left into oncoming traffic, hit a stationary object instead of an object moving towards you; hit an object moving the same way as you instead of a stationary object. LinkPizza posted... They probably easily can.They probably easily can what? If you're going to continue this ridiculous practice of not quoting what you're responding to, you at least need to provide a context or subject in your sentence so that I can figure out what you're talking about. LinkPizza posted... AI may have better vision. But thats better vision at what they are looking at. Which might not be the face of another driver in a different car. So, I still say humans can probably tell whether another driver of a different car in asleepYou keep saying, "might" or "may" or "probably" in your sentences, which implies that you both have no idea if what you're saying is true (it isn't) and are suggesting that it isn't a known fact (it is). AI don't "look at" things the way humans do, because they don't see and focus on things the way we do. They take in everything within their field of view (which is 360 degrees for a self-driving car). They, unlike humans, can pick up details on everything happening around them. If a driver's body language or driving patterns are indicative of someone falling asleep, the self-driving car will be able to pick up on a human falling asleep and react accordingly far faster and more reliably than a human driver 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/01/21 4:26:10 AM #153 | LinkPizza posted... It sounds more like you dont know how to run a business (or a big one, at least).Kind of ironic given your statements in the topic so far. LinkPizza posted... Especially if you were struggling to keep it going or make enough.Please explain to me, with everything you know about the nature of my business, its location, its clientele, its revenue, its expenses, and my practices in running it, exactly what upgrades I should have made but didn't. Make sure you be specific - after all, you made the claim that I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm sure you've already worked all this out. LinkPizza posted... But big businesses should always be thinking in the long run. And they usually have the money to do just thatAnd, not coincidentally, they're the ones you pretty much always see self-checkout lanes at. LinkPizza posted... Maybe some people could make one. But I dont think all the parts are all there, either.Of course all the parts are all there - do you think a wizard conjures self-checkout lines out of existence? Parts exist for anyone who feels like ordering them. LinkPizza posted... All kinds of crazy accidents happen all the time. They have tons of YouTube videos of them...Oh, there's a Youtube video of this bizarre scenario you can't even describe where a bunch of AI have a spontaneous malfunction that humans wouldn't have or something? Well, that makes it easy! Just post the video of the AI mass car crash and you'll have proved your point. LinkPizza posted... And I believe its possible that a corporation has invented it. And that corporation would also destroy the world. And it could happen. I have no proof that it hasnt.You have no proof that the corporation hasn't destroyed the world? I do - go look out the window right now and you will notice that the world is still there, in an undestroyed state. LinkPizza posted... But I can say that youre basically saying that self-driving cars cant have accidents if you dont like how they can happen. So, I guess youre trying to say they are perfect.When did I say that self-driving cars are perfect or cannot have accidents? I simply said that the specific type of weird malfunction you can't even articulate but that you've convinced yourself is some dire threat is based entirely on your own fantasies rather than reality. Self-driving cars can get into normal accidents and I've never denied that; they just do so a lot less often than the average human, because they are better drivers. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/01/21 4:25:47 AM #152 | LinkPizza posted... But there are plenty trying to make original games. Or more original. And trying Though, sequels are pretty big. But I would at least know they are trying to make something new.Which a suitably advanced AI is just as capable of doing as humans. LinkPizza posted... Like, Im not sure it would try to make something newYou don't have to be sure, because it's not something that's unknown. Yes, it would try and make something new. That's a simple statement of fact. LinkPizza posted... As for games like goat simulator and deer simulator, they were made by humans, AFAIKAnd therefore are imitable by AI. LinkPizza posted... Yeah. They do need to be watched. They arent perfect. But thats why I dont think mistakes will happen since theres no way a computer makes a game without any human interference in some way."AI need to be watched because they're not perfect, but they will never make mistakes because they're perfect." Do I about have the gist of your argument? LinkPizza posted... My entire purpose isnt my job. But thats where I go to talk to friends.Maybe you should try talking to friends at somewhere that isn't work? LinkPizza posted... Hobbies only go so far not to mention costly Because money will still be needed for many hobbies (if not all) I couldnt even do the rest of my life starting today without being bored most of the timeYou realize that, if your job really is how you pass the time, you could simply just do that same task as a hobby in the future for free, right? In an automated future, nobody's forcing you not to do something. If you really *want* to do a job, instead of socializing or pursuing a hobby for some reason, you could just do that same task. You wouldn't get paid for it, but you've said that you gain fulfillment from it, so you shouldn't need compensation. And if you do demand compensation, then you're not *actually* working because you find it enjoyable, you're working to fulfill needs that a fully automated future will fulfill for you. LinkPizza posted... By replicating it, are you agreeing that they are just ripping off other music, then?I mean, humans do that already. If you're at all familiar with the music industry, sound engineers know exactly what sound patterns elicit positive responses in humans and can tailor songs to hit those patterns. Here's Rob Paravonian doing a comedy routine on it with demonstrations of how so many popular songs follow the same chord patterns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM Again, I understand you're not a trained musician, but I am and I can tell you that music theory classes are all about understanding the patterns, such as chord progressions, used in various musical styles. There's a reason why the 1-4-5-1 chord progression is fucking everywhere and is the basis of blues and rock music. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/01/21 4:25:08 AM #151 | LinkPizza posted... Others that you buy will probably be an expensive as cheap cars. They dont seem like theyd be cheap to make. And whoever made them will want a profit. And thats if you buy it. But who said you can buy it.Again, why are you using future tense for this? You're acting like these robots are future tech rather than something that's commercially available, right this very second. Here you go, if you have roughly $25,000 (depending on options/applications), you too can be the proud owner of a learning robot: https://www.active8robots.com/robots/sawyer-robot-uk/buy-sawyer-robot/ LinkPizza posted... Free is a nice thought, but one that will never come true Just like the vroombra.And here's where I reveal my cunning deception - "Vroomba" is actually a real product, cunningly disguised by myself as a hypothetical. It's real name is "Roomba" and you can, in fact, have one vacuum your home entirely for free. LinkPizza posted... You the disingenuous one if you really think things will be free for no reason.Fortunately, I don't think that. I think they will be free for many reasons. I've articulated some of them in this post. LinkPizza posted... If they were true, many things would already be free.You mean things like music, pictures, videos, stories, e-mail accounts, TV shows, video games, porn, online forums, video conferencing software, social media, podcasts, and news? Because I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there's this thing called "the internet" where all of the above is available for free, in quantities so large that people are literally creating and releasing it faster than any person could ever hope to consume it. That's really the part of this you're refusing to acknowledge. Anything that can be digitized or automated quickly has its costs rounded down to zero. According to you that shouldn't be happening, because people always demand money... yet it is and has been for decades. LinkPizza posted... As for the seed to dinner plate, are you saying its going to grow a full plate in the course of an hour while making dinner?No, I'm saying you'll already have plates available that your robot will make use of. Or hell, maybe it comes with its own full serving set just for convenience, whatever you want. Unless you eat every meal off a paper plate, you don't pay for a new plate every single meal. I have no idea why you thought this was a good point to raise. LinkPizza posted... And what about meat? And cheese? And where do you get the seeds?None of that requires human hands. Robots can tend the livestock and harvest the crops. We don't pay animals now for their meat or their cheese, nor plants for their seeds. There is no reason why that will change in the future. And all of those things reproduce themselves for free (which, you'll note, is the exact same process robots could be taking). LinkPizza posted... Especially since the computer might know if someone is playing aggressively, passively, offensively, or defensivelyPlease explain how those terms apply to the game of Go. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/01/21 4:24:24 AM #150 | LinkPizza posted... They wouldnt do anything that would hurt their profits.This is sort of like saying, "Digital cameras will never replace film; disposable camera companies wouldn't do anything that would hurt their profits." LinkPizza posted... There will always be money. Or a currency, I should say.You should, because those are not the same thing and you've readily demonstrated in this topic that you don't understand the difference. LinkPizza posted... So, they would have to be programed to know how to program Or programed to learn to program, which is like being programed to know how to program Which is what I said. Wed still have to program them to know how to program (or how to learn how to program first)Why are you using conditional tense here as though it hasn't already happened? Robots already know how to program, dude. That's one of the easiest things to teach a program how to do. LinkPizza posted... And I want to be perfect because if I have to give up control, it better be perfect. If not, Ill do it. Its really that simpleAnd you'll do it worse than an AI, because even if it isn't perfect, it's still better than you. And, as a result, very quickly you will find that you cannot be employed in a field that an AI can do. This will extend to things like driving as well - in much the same way that you are no longer allowed to have a horse do the manual work that an internal combustion engine does and be on the same highway, you - a human driver - will eventually be banned from driving a car outside of special hobbyist tracks designed for that purpose, because you are far more unsafe than the AI-operated cars. LinkPizza posted... And they still probably wont go over the speed limit.You're complaining about not being able to break the law with this point. Campaign for higher speed limits if you actually want this to happen. LinkPizza posted... And many people that dont need a new car wont even look at them.They don't need to be. The beauty of self-driving cars is that they don't need to be "owned" by anyone. Instead of owning a car and having it take up a bunch of space in your property and, in essence, requiring a fairly significant chunk of space in your home (driveway and garage), you can simply buy-in to a network of self-driving cars. Any time you want to go somewhere, you simply press a button that says, "Send a car to pick me up at 8:00". When 8:00 rolls around, your self-driving car will be ready and waiting for you and you just hop in, let it drive you to wherever you're going, get out, and the car will be on its way, heading off to drive its next passenger. At any given time, most cars in existence are idle, sitting in parking lots or driveways. By shifting to self-driving, you would dramatically reduce the need for both number of cars and amount of space dedicated to them, which would have all sorts of positive implications on waste, carbon emissions, real estate prices, and the like. Plus, it means you would basically have all the benefits of owning a car with none of the financial obligations. LinkPizza posted... And I heard from someone else that the push for electric cars seem to be more in demand than self-drivingThis is a non-sequitur. It's not like a car has to choose between being electric or being self-driving; it can be both. Most self-driving cars already are electric. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 05/01/21 4:24:06 AM #149 | LinkPizza posted... Most chefs at normal restaurants follow a restaurants recipe. Thats true. But those chefs arent the one normally using secret ingredients, or making special foods or whatever.So you're saying instead of 100% of chefs being automated, only 95% are at risk? OK. I don't think that really changes the argument as much as you seem to think. LinkPizza posted... Humans can also have personal chefs somewhere else, too.The really rich ones, sure. For 99% of the population, that isn't a realistic option. LinkPizza posted... Plus, I dont see many people carrying a robot with them everywhere they travelThey don't have to. Again, you're thinking about this way too small-scale. A "robot" isn't just a physical device, it's a network. If you tell Starbucksbot exactly how you like your coffee and fine-tune it to your exact tastes, you don't have one robot who knows how to make you the perfect drink, you have millions. Every Starbucksbot in the world now knows your personal taste, meaning that when you go on vacation you'll be able to have your coffee made exactly as you like it, even though you might be on a totally different continent. LinkPizza posted... By better, I do mean faster. But also better in most cases, as well (like bagging, which we probably still be at checkout if getting many groceries) And I dont see it getting any faster in a couple of years.Again, I already explained this. This is where quoting what you're responding to helps, because you might have noticed the explanation inherent in what I said. "Better" need not be faster; in fact "better" can be slower. A system that is half as fast as a human but ten times cheaper is still "better" in the owner's eyes. LinkPizza posted... You said it wasnt cost effective for stores, even though I said it was. So which is it? Cost effective or not? And if its cost effective, why are we still waiting on stores to have more than 4 when many of the bigger stores have like 10 empty lanes all the time?You keep bringing up points I've already explained to you. Owning a washing machine is more cost effective than going to a laundromat by far; yet there are still lots of people who use laundromats, for a variety of reasons. Does that mean washing machines aren't actually cost effective in the long run? No, it just means there's more metrics that businesses consider when upgrading their tech. LinkPizza posted... Ive literally asked most people I know in real life that I speak with on at least a weekly basis about this.Your personal anecdotes are not statistically valid, nor are they all that relevant to the debate. LinkPizza posted... I think you need to catch up with the way the world works. The people buying and helping to fund automation are the people with money. And that money gives them power. They arent going to make anything free.You might want to brush up on your history if you haven't spotted the pattern in tech advances. Even if, say, Amazon wanted to continuously charge money for the use of their robots, "AI" is not a physical property, it's a design idea. And you cannot ban - or even really control - an idea. If Amazon doesn't make things as cheap as they can, which will effectively be free, one of their competitors will undercut them. Eventually, via that process, it will get cheap enough that hobbyists put out free versions (and long before that tech pirates will be doing the same). We've seen this with pretty much every technology in the world. Any music, any program, almost anything that can be digitized can be found online today, often completely for free as long as you're willing to skirt the rules. Why do you think AI will be in any way differently. --- 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! |
| Topic | Terry Crews just spoiled Mother 3 (spoilers) |
| darkknight109 04/30/21 4:20:17 PM #5 | What exactly did he spoil? I've played through Mother 3 and none of what was in that video would be stuff I would even charitably call spoilers. Yeah, he uses some of the late-game locales for background (all for, like, half a second at a time)... but the only way you'd even know what those locations are or why they're significant is if you'd already played through the game. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 04/24/21 8:26:56 AM #145 | LinkPizza posted... Or are you saying if a self-driving car move toward another, the other one wont move. Because if youre saying it wont move, then they suck. But if they would move out of the way, then my theory makes sense.You haven't even been able to articulate what your theory *is*, nevermind how it would affect AI but not humans in the same scenario. Give me a break with this - you've come up with some bizarre fantasy in your head that is so outlandish you can't even describe it, you are completely unable to cite any proof that suggests it has any basis in reality, and you're somehow expecting that this will stand as a valid point in this argument? No. Drop this point, it's over. You will never be able to prove that this is a valid concern. LinkPizza posted... But humans can probably see inside other cars better. And probably more accuratelyThey literally cannot. AI are objectively better at vision than humans. We are limited by biology; they are not. For the same reason why a satellite-mounted telescope can see far farther than even the most keen-sighted human, an AI can see better than a human into a nearby vehicle. LinkPizza posted... And it has an especially high chance when the road is mixed with humans and self-driving.This fantasy scenario of yours has an especially high-chance? Then let's see a source for it. LinkPizza posted... And I dont know the whole conversation.If *you* can't even remember the whole conversation, why are you expecting me to do so? LinkPizza posted... But all those small buses dont seem to be handicap friendly, so somethings going on if theyre using a lot of thoseExactly - and that "something" is that they are capable of taking handicap passengers, because not doing so is, as you've observed, illegal. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 04/24/21 8:26:25 AM #144 | LinkPizza posted... Businesses should absolutely have the luxury to worry about the long run.I can tell you don't run a business. I do. I've owned a small business as a side-gig for seven years and there are times where I'm lucky if there's enough money in the business account to cover my expenses for that *month*. I'm not in a line of work where I need to worry about asset depreciation, but I can tell you that long-term finances don't generally factor into my thinking, because I simply don't have the working capital to take advantage. If someone told me, "Hey, this machine costs $100,000 but will save you twice that over the next ten years!", I would simply laugh at them because that's far more than my business can afford to spend, regardless of the savings. Whether it's good business sense or not, I can't spend money I don't have and neither can any other business. LinkPizza posted... As for getting a used on instead of a new one, thats because people, unlike businesses, dont always have the money.Apparently wherever you live businesses have access to infinite money. Must be nice. LinkPizza posted... But I probably couldnt make a self-checkout machine. Maybe not even a makeshift one So, those are differentSure you could. Maybe not you specifically, but people can. Amateur robotics/electronics construction is absolutely a thing and all of the parts and components you need are publicly available from online marketplaces, often for pretty cheap prices. LinkPizza posted... The aliens thing is to show how anything can happen.The "aliens thing" is a standard Devil's Proof. If you think those are valid, then here's mine - a mysterious company has already developed an AI that will automate everything in five years. If you don't believe that's possible, you need to prove to me that it isn't true. You won't be able to, because that's also a Devil's Proof, but go ahead and try. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 04/24/21 8:25:53 AM #143 | LinkPizza posted... As for video games, the reason I dont think they would be is that theyll be taking data from other games to make games.Which is what humans do, so that's not a change. LinkPizza posted... Though, some games stay wonky, like physics is GTA V. But thats only if the computer would think that.By the same token, current games stay wonky only if the humans think it's a good idea. Again, not a change. LinkPizza posted... But I dont think it would actually make mistakes.You say this after arguing earlier in your post that AI always makes mistakes and therefore requires humans to supervise them. So which is it? AI are perfect intelligences entirely absent the capacity to make mistakes or they are error-prone and require human supervision? LinkPizza posted... But what else would there be to fill fulfilled in this imaginary automated world? You cant do anything because its all done for you? Theres nothing left to do except be bored and have no purpose.If your entire purpose in life is your job, I suggest you get a hobby. There are plenty of fulfilling things to do that don't involve a job. Hell, if I could retire tomorrow, I would do so. I am confident I could live 500 years and not run out of things to do. If you cannot and require a job to find fulfillment, that's a sign that you need to make some life changes. LinkPizza posted... I know dont where you got that people tell me what to listen to.Mostly from the fact that you refuse to form an opinion on AI-generated music, despite the fact that it sounds like you have perfectly functional ears. You don't need a professional musician to tell you whether that music sounds good or not; just listen to it yourself and find out. LinkPizza posted... And the problem is them replicating itWhich they've already done, as evinced by those Youtube videos. LinkPizza posted... Apparently, Amazon is working on firing those people, as well. They are trying to teach robots to stock shelves in their stores. Like not just the warehouse, but the Amazon physical store. And then, they will probably sell that to other stores.Which all pretty much supports what I'm saying, no? --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 04/24/21 8:25:13 AM #142 | LinkPizza posted... But I think going 5 over or something on an empty highway somewhere is fine as long as you can control the vehicleSo humans can tell them to do so. Again, this is entirely a human decision, not a limitation of the AI. You can get the AI to drive double the speed limit, so long as you can convince the humans in charge of law enforcement that it's a good idea to do so... LinkPizza posted... The problem is you arent paying the robot. You are paying the people who own them. The robot is the tool in this case, and you are using it from somewhere else.Do you cut your local hardware store a cheque every time you use your lawn mower? If not, why do you think robots would be any different? LinkPizza posted... The other problem is the people who own the robot need to be able to fix the robot. And that requires resources. And those resources cost money.Those resources cost money because they require human labour to extract and process. Automate that and those resources can be gathered and processed (or, more likely, recycled and reprocessed) for free. LinkPizza posted... And you do realize that people already have to buy the Vroomba you speak of. They arent freeThat would be because humans make them right now, out of resources extracted by humans and shipped by humans to factories built by humans. Every human in that supply chain can, at least in theory, be replaced by a robot. Do that and your costs become zero. Again, you are being deliberately disingenuous on this point. I have already explained this to you numerous times. LinkPizza posted... People would pay for it (the money goes to the store who owned it before you, not the machine), and the proof is that they literally already doBecause we're not in the fully automated future we're talking about here, genius. Once again, you're jumping back and forth between the mostly- or fully-automated future and the non-automated present. LinkPizza posted... Its like if you bought a robot that cooks, you would still need the cooking materials so it can cook it. It cant just make food appear. You need to pay for those.And if that food is cultivated by a robot from seed to dinner plate? LinkPizza posted... So, its still taught the basics, which I believe I mentioned. And while there are millions of moves in chess, they are finite. Based on how they played before (if they have that data), and how they are currently playing, they can usually try to predict their opponents moves, which is what real people also do. They even use data to try to trick opponents. And they learn from their opponents they are playing against. Even if its during that match. And while the number is high (and may start of going higher at first), it eventually gets lower as the game is played more. And the computer can think of millions of ways to play constantly at the same time. Even if there are high, they still are limited in the moves that can be made. As certain moves are made, others become possible or impossible. And the computer can get rid of the impossible moves and focus on only the possible ones. And only the good possible ones. Like if it knows a certain move would be bad with no pay off, that move is now not a move it would make. Basically, even if its a lot of moves, they become more limited as time goes on. And only certain moves would make sense, to a computer or human And I may not know about Go, but I dont underestimate the computers ability to predict moves. It may not be perfect because I hear some people try to trick it. But its probably pretty good when playing against people who are playing the way they normally play Like they may know if someone is more aggressive or passive with their moves or whateverWhat point are you even trying to make with all this? You don't even seem to be arguing anything about this tangent anymore, just talking in incredibly abstract terms about a game you don't even know how to play. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial Opinion #4: Automation |
| darkknight109 04/24/21 8:24:50 AM #141 | LinkPizza posted... Like some people will do better at cooking since they might not tell anyone (including AI), their secrets (whether its an ingredient or secret technique that normally wouldnt make sense).Sure, a high-end chef with Michelin stars to his name might be able to make that claim. The overwhemling majority of commercial chefs simply follow a recipe that an AI could easily learn and that is good enough for 90+% of the population. Moreover, since AI can communicate, an AI can learn how you like your dishes prepared and adjust its recipes accordingly, even if you are at a restaurant on an entirely different continent. It's like your own personal chef following you, which is something a human cannot match. LinkPizza posted... And technically, people can do better than self-checkout when people have a full cart."Better" by what metric? "Faster"? Sure, probably, at least with current self-checkout carts (though check back in a few years when automatic debiting is ready for rollout). "Cost effective?" AI wins there, even with a full cart. A system that is twice as slow as a human is still more efficient if it's 10x cheaper. Hence why, as you've observed, a lot of cashiers have lost their jobs to self-checkouts. LinkPizza posted... Caught up? What the hell are you talking about. This is what Ive been saying FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. There will always be money because currency of some kind will be needed. And that currency will be money. Why make a new currency when you already have one.OK, I guess you're not quite caught-up yet if you still haven't figured out that money can only exist in a world where there is human labour available to earn it... LinkPizza posted... How can they program themselves without knowing how to program.They do know how to program. That's not even a new development. How do you think learning AI works? It has to be able to program itself in order to actually "learn" a lesson. LinkPizza posted... The reason they should be perfect every time is because they are supposed to be better than humans. So, they should be perfect every time.Why do you continue to conflate "better" with "perfect"? Those are not even close to the same thing. At this point, you're just being deliberately obtuse on this. LinkPizza posted... And I know you can program them to go faster.Then why did you raise the point that they're slower? The speed they go is entirely a human choice. You seem to already know that, so why are you arguing this? LinkPizza posted... And I dont see them being common anytime soon, either Not for maybe a couple decades.You're grossly underestimating the financial interests that are pushing this. Some of the biggest companies on the planet want to see this technology go live. Uber has based their entire business around it. If you think this isn't coming - and coming soon - you're being wilfully delusional. Again, these cars are on the roads right now. They are already around you and they will only be growing more common with each passing year (especially with COVID pushing an automation boom at the moment). --- 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! |
| Topic | Were you posting on the PotD message board in 2003? |
| darkknight109 04/17/21 2:58:39 PM #47 | Yes. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial opinion: star wars is... |
| darkknight109 04/15/21 5:13:32 PM #41 | Cruddy_horse posted... Also am I the only one that enjoyed the Hobbit movies? They wern't masterpieces and I thought the second one was kinda flat but I still liked the first one.I thought the second one was solid, but the first and third were just tediously dull. Like... I had no reason to care about any of these characters other than Bilbo. The dwarves, aside from Thorin Asshole, may as well have been faceless extras. You can basically divide them into the old wise one, the one who wants to bang an elf, and the rest and I've literally just described all the characterization the movies give them. Also, it is completely ridiculous that the visual effects of The Hobbit movies look so much worse than the LotR movies, despite being released a full decade later. --- 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! |
| Topic | Controversial opinion: star wars is... |
| darkknight109 04/14/21 10:47:25 PM #36 | Zeus posted... The prequels are bad, but the sequels are painful at times.Episode VII is fine. Episode VIII is good, though not great. Episode IX is a dumpster fire. And yet, all three still manage to be better than Episodes II and III, mostly because it would be difficult for them to be any worse. Episode I more or less wins the best prequel award by default and even then the only sequel it manages to surpass in quality is Episode IX. At least the sequels had competent directors. Episode IX aside, at least they had internally consistent plots. At least they had a script editor on staff, knew what a second take was, and had special effects that didn't look like a slightly-better-than-average PS2 game. That's all more than I can say for any of the prequels. --- 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! |
| Board List |