Lurker > darkknight109

LinkPizza posted...
Earlier, I was talking about automation making stuff (with materials). And mentioned that things should already be free if all it took was automation making it.

Except no business line is fully automated yet, nor are they expected to be for quite some time, something that has already been explained to you several times. If you fail to understand it at this point, that's on you.

LinkPizza posted...
Using those, it should be clear I was talking about physical things made in automated factories being free.

Except there is no such thing as a fully automated factory, because all factories still have human employees, even if they're just in management and sales.

LinkPizza posted...
I think I see you're problem and where you fail to understand business.

I think I see your problem and it's that you don't have a very good grasp of English.

LinkPizza posted...
The things is, just because somebody used robots instead of humans doesn't mean they'll sell you the items cheaper. Because you already bought them at a certain price. So, you'd probably by them at that price again.

This would be true in a world where there was no such thing as competition. Shockingly, that is not the real world.

LinkPizza posted...
But if getting back to the how everything isn't free, we can sum it all up. The free stuff you're getting is either paid for you by the ad companies (the friend buys lunch example), or by companies selling something for you (you information who they sell to whoever wants it, not just Microsoft like you assume).

Which is still free. You can dance around that point all you like, but you can't deny the facts.

LinkPizza posted...
And even then, some places offer premium version of stuff that you also have to pay for

Which doesn't make the basic version "not free", it just means there are paid options available.

LinkPizza posted...
And the internet still cost money like I said earlier.

Unless you're using a free access point that is. Which, you know, is a thing that exists.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

And again, in the "No U!" fits, I'll use it. And usually seems to fit.

Largely because you don't have any other way to refute my points, especially since you plainly don't understand a lot of the terms I'm using and are trying to cover that by quickly looking them up and hoping you'll get it after browsing the first article you find.

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe you're just projecting a lot... Who knows...

And right on cue there's the 10th "No, U!". This is actually kind of comical at this point - do you have actually have a debate strategy other than parroting your opponent's points back at them or are you just struggling because you know I'm right?

LinkPizza posted...

Some stores you can buy them include, iRobot, Best Buy, and even Bed, Bath, and Beyond. All of these places and more sell Roombas.

The context of this discussion was an automated future, bright-eyes. Listing stores that sells them today when I explicitly asked about a "fully automated future" is a non-answer. You wouldn't be paying any of those places because none of them would have humans working for them anymore, if indeed they continued to exist at all.

LinkPizza posted...

Just because automation made them doesn't mean they be given to the stores for free.

Except the stores wouldn't have reason to pay for them when they can just have their builder-bots make the Roombas themselves.

...and you wouldn't have reason to pay the store when you can have your own builder bot make the Roomba for you.

I'm amazed you still struggle with a concept this simple. It really isn't that hard to understand.

LinkPizza posted...

Is this why your business failed?

Dunno who you got your reading lessons from, but you should ask for a refund because your comprehension is awful.

You're using past tense on a business that is still active and still successful. I don't make much money but that is not a failed business in my line of work.

You make an awful lot of assumptions about something you know nothing about, but that's pretty much been par for the course for you on this topic.

LinkPizza posted...

Youtube isn't free. It's free for us.

"Youtube isn't free", he says, before admitting in the very next sentence that it is free for the user.

LinkPizza posted...

And I'm not adding the physical qualifying.

The physical qualifying what?

I can't honestly tell if this is a context problem, more of your awful grammar, or both.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

And some places aren't easy for the a self-driving car to reach. Like the navigation gets confused going to my BF's house. Or on country roads.

I'm pretty sure most people don't have cause to go to your BF's house, so bringing it up isn't relevant.

As for country roads, you're not going to get transit out there either. Trust me, I've lived that life.

LinkPizza posted...

If it's not available for regular use, or still in testing phases and stuff like that, it's still future tech.

It literally is not.

Future tech is technology that has not yet been developed. That is the literal definition of the phrase.

If you disagree, you are simply wrong. Period.

LinkPizza posted...

But I definitely grasp basic English knowledge better than you, so that's a plus...

Your frankly atrocious grammar and rampant typos say otherwise.

Seriously, learn how to use periods, commas, and ellipses properly because you mangle them throughout your posts. In a single post, you're putting periods where commas should be in a dozen different instances.

This may actually be the most insulting thing you've said considering how awful your English is.

LinkPizza posted...

How would you teach it to do anything.

There should be a question mark after this question, Mr. English Expert.

I get that you don't know how machine learning works and apparently can't understand it well enough to see how something simple like the Sawyer bot works. I'll spare you the details but to simplify it to an extreme level, bots like Sawyer learn through trial-and-error. They observe a human doing a task and log what the successful end state should be. There are only so many ways to complete a task and, as such, they attempt various permutations and combinations until they strike upon the correct one, measuring whether each attempt is more or less successful than the last.

If you can actually understand the applied programming and statistical modelling, it's actually quite fascinating material.

Here, educate yourself. This is a decent starter tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OHn5ZF4Uo

LinkPizza posted...

Doesn't really look like it could learn anything.

That observation says more about you than the bot.

Seriously, learn about this shit before you start talking about it, because this is a really dumb statement to make.

LinkPizza posted...

. And they haven't even shown it had the capacity to learn anything other than saying it could.

Then maybe look up more than one video on it?

Here's a Sawyer that was taught how to make coffee samples:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRSC2XZga98

Here's someone teaching a Baxter, which was an earlier model in the line:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOkWuSCkRI

LinkPizza posted...

And depends on the space travel, it could be considered future tech.

What depends on "the space travel"?

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!

LinkPizza posted...

And you say, "Not if renting is cheaper." But that depends on if renting is cheaper.

No shit, that's literally exactly what I said.

LinkPizza posted...

From what I hear, that's not the reality for Zipcar.

I wasn't talking about Zipcar, so this statement is meaningless.

LinkPizza posted...

And for owning, you only pay Until it's all paid for.

I have disproved this three times already. Please stop saying it.

LinkPizza posted...

But I don't think the route has to be that direct. As long as you can get there, it should be fine.

This is an inefficient solution to a problem that could more elegantly be solved with self-driving cars. Same with your later points about staying at length on a circuitous bus route instead of just going straight from your departure point to your destination in a car.

LinkPizza posted...

Transit isn't that inefficient for everyone.

But it is for most of the world's population.

If you live in a transit hub with an efficient transit system near to your chosen home, good for you; most of the world does not.

LinkPizza posted...

Even for me, they're like 3 or 4 in walking distance.

Good for you.

There are zero for me, which is the same number there were at the last place I lived.

LinkPizza posted...

More buses would mean less traffic...

Only true if the buses were actually carrying a significant number of people. If the buses were nearly or completely empty, they are an obstruction because they - unlike self-driving cars which can go out of the way until they are needed - must continue to drive their route in case someone is waiting to be picked up.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

It that's you've been doing this whole time.

Can you please post in English? I get tired of trying to make sense of your gibberish.

LinkPizza posted...

And you said yourself said the whole full driverless thing wouldn't happen for decades, as well. And Uber themselves say it far off. They said by 2020, and it's already changed. And it's apparently getting further away...

Hey, speaking of deliberately twisting someone else's argument, you just completely misconstrued mine.

Uber wanted automated cars solely for their company by 2020. I am saying that universal self-driving cars, with no human-driven cars on the road won't happen for decades. In no universe are those two things even close to the same thing.

LinkPizza posted...

And switching to the Uber model has more cars on the road. There are already people who don't drive, so they use Uber. If you take away everybody else's ability to drive, you'll have tons of people on the road at once.

No, not "at once", because not all people travel at the same time. Anyone that was already in a car at peak hours will still be in the same number of cars now (minus drivers-for-hire, like cabbies or bus drivers, since they will have been replaced), but the difference is there will be fewer parked cars and those rush hour cars can go pick other people up and drive them around in off-hours.

Self-driving cars also handle traffic more efficiently (a fully self-driving car force would have no need for traffic lights or signals, since they would just communicate their intent to other cars and use a neural network to assign turn spots to each car), which reduces the amount of time spent on the road, which more quickly frees up cars for other passengers.

LinkPizza posted...

Not to mention you would need extras for people needing rides.

You already have that today - they're called "empty cabs/Ubers/bus seats".

LinkPizza posted...

And to be used when others are dirty.

Which could be stored at a depot, so no additional road load.

LinkPizza posted...

But one difference is payment. Most people don't worrying about paying on their own property.

You just spent several paragraphs earlier that things on the internet aren't free because you have to pay for the internet. That would mean that parking on your own property isn't free because you're paying for the property, meaning you're still paying for parking there as well.

Admit you were wrong then or admit you're wrong here, because both cannot be true.

LinkPizza posted...

There are many differences, which is why is doesn't work for the "scenario" I put forth.

What scenario?

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!

LinkPizza posted...

When you leave your keys in the ignition, you get a soft beeping. And that's in certain positions. To the point where I have close my door with them in because I couldn't hear it. Or because it didn't make a sound. Not really an alarm.

Sounds like a problem with your car design. You should get a better one.

LinkPizza posted...

And not everywhere is full of cameras.

Did you go into a business today?

Congratulations, you almost certainly were on a security camera!

LinkPizza posted...

And you can tell teens not to fuck in the car, but they still will. Many use to do it because they couldn't at the their homes. Take away cars they can drive themselves, and they'll just fuck in a self-driving car. Possibly while moving. Teens sometimes do whatever they want... The problem is you'd basically have to send it in for cleaning after every ride.

Well, ignoring that I doubt the client base for self-driving cars is entirely horny teen-couples, I still fail to see the issue of sending a car in for cleaning and billing the teens' account appropriately if it is misused. You haven't really disproved anything here, just restated the original proposition that I already gave you the answer for.

Pretty sure that most horny teens would pick somewhere more discreet for their romp if they knew there was a $500 cleaning bill waiting for them if they chose to fuck in the car. Suggesting the cars would need to be cleaned after every single ride is more than a little hyperbolic.

LinkPizza posted...

But I still agree with what I said earlier

You agree with yourself? What a shocker!

LinkPizza posted...

That's assuming It knows who the person is. People could easily make an account not using their real name.

You act like it's not possible to verify someone's ID using photo ID or other specific information.

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe they don't get a good look at the person's face (mask, neck gaiter, balaclava, etc) while someone else called the Uber for them... any number of things.

Possible.

And for the overwhelming majority of situations that don't fit into that extremely narrow hypothetical, there won't be an issue.

When you have to concoct one of these ridiculously specific hypotheticals to prove your point, you're basically admitting that you're wrong and your complaints are just spurious naysaying for the purposes of being contrarian.

LinkPizza posted...

And literally everybody in the world needs one.

Literally everybody in the world does not need one.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

And 11 years ago was still after the great recession ended.

The effects of widespread unemployment and a stagnant economy were still absolutely in full force in 2010. Hell, unemployment was at its highest point in most western countries in that year.

LinkPizza posted...

And I know you hate personal anecdotes because they always go against you, but maybe read it before discounting it.

No need - personal anecdotes are not statistically significant.

And no, personal anecdotes don't always go against me, because I can easily put forward my own for every one you give. You say that you've never met a single person who would ride a self-driving car? I've met dozens. Hundreds. Nah, fuck it, I'll say I've met millions and every single one of them said they would use a self-driving car as soon as they could.

Hey, my personal anecdote looks a lot more impressive than yours! Do you see why they're not exactly things you want being treated seriously in a debate yet?

Your anecdotes are not relevant to this discussion, no matter how much you try and deny that truth.

LinkPizza posted...

But I'm sure you know that since you've been wrong a lot in out discussion...

I will say that I don't have trouble spelling the word "our", so that apparently puts me ahead of you...

LinkPizza posted...

You assume self-driving car will be cheaper, but there's no basis for that.

Sure there is - it's called basic economics.

First of all, let's clarify that you once again deliberately misconstrued my argument here, because I said self driving cars were cheaper for transit/car-for-hire applications. Not that they were cheaper for ownership simply on the basis of the car itself.

Yes, a self-driving car is almost assuredly going to be more expensive than a manual car to purchase and that will be true for a long time to come. However, while the self-driving car costs more up-front, it also replaces a driver that costs tens of thousands of dollars a year to employ. When comparing a self-driving car to a manual car, the self-driving model will pay for the difference in a commercial application in a couple of years. Add in an increase in service times (self-driving cars can work 24/7, 365 days a year with no breaks aside for fuelling and maintenance) and a reduction in accident rate and insurance costs and the cars are a net benefit to the company's bottom line.

This is exactly what happened with factory automation. Yes, things like car-building robots are very expensive up front (to the tune of millions of dollars per unit) while replacing workers that don't have any up-front costs, but in the long run they are cost effective because the annual costs of maintenance/power/upkeep/depreciation are less than the wages of the worker it replaced over the life of the unit. If this were not the case, automation would not be done because it would be cheaper just to hire humans. Yet we know that modern manufacturing factories employ less than 10% of the workers they once did before robotic automation became widespread.

LinkPizza posted...

And if it's that expensive for a company to get them (and probably cost a pretty penny to maintain them

"Probably", meaning you don't know.

As self-driving cars are electric, they actually have lower maintenance costs than traditional vehicles because of fewer moving parts.

LinkPizza posted...

And before you say something weird like

Nice strawman.

Can you use a few more logical fallacies in your posts? I've almost got a double bingo on my card.

LinkPizza posted...

Getting a car mean payments, but eventually those payments stop normally after a few years. Using self-driving Uber for 15 years can end up costing a lot more. Same with Zipcar. Because you never stop paying.

You never stop paying for a car period, regardless of whether you're renting or owning.

I already covered this above. The bill for a car is never zero, because fuel and upkeep are always a thing.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

Though, just because some Uber and Lyfts use self-driving, it doesn't mean all of them do.

Both Uber and Lyft are intent on going completely self-driving once the technology becomes widespread. Their business-models depend on it.

Are they there now? No. But I never said they were.

LinkPizza posted...

In that case, ride sharing or car ownership might be cheaper.

Dude, "ride sharing" and "car subscription" are the exact same thing for self-driving cars.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially since after owning a car, you only pay for gas and upkeep.

And parking. And cleaning. And repairs. And...

LinkPizza posted...

Upkeep can be more expensive, but that's normally if something goes wrong.

This makes it sound like you don't actually own a car, because upkeep can be plenty expensive even if nothing goes wrong. The objective of upkeep is to catch problems *before* they turn into disasters.

AAA/CAA recommends that a regular car user should budget $1000 to $1500 per year for maintenance and upkeep costs. That's about 5% of the value of an average car per year.

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, a car payment will eventually end. But the subscription keeps going.

A car payment will eventually end, but maintenance and upkeep bills will not and those will progressively increase until you wind up replacing the car. At no point is car ownership "free".

LinkPizza posted...

So, it could be cheaper, but it might not be.

By saying it "could" be cheaper, you've acknowledge I was correct.

Yes, a greedy company can always make things more expensive, but that is true of car ownership and ride sharing as well.

Thank you once again for admitting I was right.

For the record, the original point here was that car subscriptions don't have the up-front costs of car ownership. Paying a subscription fee each month is cheaper than paying for a car loan, fuel, upkeep, and maintenance. Whether it is cost-effective in the long run depends on a number of variables, but widespread self-driving car subscriptions would remove a huge barrier to car access for portions of the population at or near the poverty line.

LinkPizza posted...

And I said they are having trouble affording them. I never said they couldn't, though. So, don't put words in my mouth.

Then I'll say it for you - some people don't make enough money to afford a car. That is simple fact.

Many of those people could manage if the up-front costs were lower, however, making a car subscription a far more tantalizing option.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

But based on your stats, I'll be dead before they pass the law, anyway.

What stats? I presented zero stats to do with the timing of this law.

Unless you think, "This probably won't happen for decades" constitutes actual statistical analysis, which would actually explain a lot, come to think of it...

LinkPizza posted...

As long as I don't have to live in a dystopian future with a tyrannical government, I'll be fine.

You won't, regardless of how fast automation happens.

LinkPizza posted...

For Zipcar, I use the word apparently because I personally haven't use them.

Which kind of has the energy of, "I've never played [popular video game] but I hate it."

LinkPizza posted...

Idk what you mean by "Trumpian". Sounds like you just don't like facts.

>Calls his own opinions "facts"
>Wonders why he's being accused of being Trumpian

For the record, you - like Trump - continually reference how "many people" agree or "most people" or "everybody" agrees with your viewpoint. He would do that all the time when he was trying to make an argument.

LinkPizza posted...

I heard it's only good if you use it like once a month or something.

"You heard", meaning you don't know.

LinkPizza posted...

And a review article said, "people who will use Zipcar rentals more than twice per week (more than about 30 hours per month), the model will cost more than owning a car or using ride-sharing."

A review article you notably haven't cited.

Regardless, this is an issue with pricing, not with the actual business model. I never said Zipcar was priced appropriately, merely that it was an example of how a self-driving rental service could work.

LinkPizza posted...

That said, I can't say it was good or successful. Just better than it is now.

You can't say either of those things because you've never used it and just looked up a smattering of opinions online and tried to pass that for actual analysis.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

As for enjoyment, we kind of were talking about it at one point. I said many people like driving and would want to continue doing it without having self-driving cars do it for them. Like how I mentioned people loved driving in post #157. So, I was definitely talking about that.

How the fuck am I supposed to make the connection between a random statement you made and something we were talking about "at one point"?

There's definitely someone in this conversation who has a poor understanding of context clues, but it isn't me...

LinkPizza posted...

Shows enjoyment rather than dislike, which also had 2 options like liking it did...

But no neutral option, which colours the responses.

Without an option for "neither like nor dislike", the article is overstating the support for enjoyment, since "enjoy it a moderate amount" is the most neutral option on offer.

LinkPizza posted...

It only "scuppers" my point if you can't read.

I like how you put the word "scuppers" in scare-quotes here as though it's some fancy word you hadn't seen before.

LinkPizza posted...

Meaning, you're wrong when you said, "Largely because with most of your points you clearly haven't." since all of my points had those sweet links to actually back them up.

Which displays, at best, a surface-level understanding of the subject, since you're simply regurgitating what someone else has said without bothering to dig down into understanding *why* it was said that way.

LinkPizza posted...

And the reason people don't fight over not being able to use a horses and buggy is because you can actually still use them.Maybe you should start looking up your information before spreading misinformation.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-book/chapter7-6.html
https://www.fiix.io/car-advice/articles/can-you-get-ticketed-for-driving-slow

Horses and buggies cannot keep up with the flow of traffic in most areas and, as such, would be considered illegal on most roadways. Only in those areas where traffic is already slow enough that a horse-and-buggy would not impede traffic would they be considered legal.

Maybe learn the actual facts before accusing someone else of misinformation.

LinkPizza posted...

People would definitely riot over not being able to drive their cars.

"You have no proof of that"

LinkPizza posted...

They let people eat what they want when there are safer alternatives. They let people go unvaccinated, when that could harm others.

Because there are circumstances when those alternatives would be more harmful than the safer options (e.g. food allergies, weak immune system); there is no such excuse for keeping manual cars in a world where self-driving cars are safer and more efficient.

A car considered state-of-the-art 50 years ago would be unable to pass a safety inspection today without retrofitting because it does not contain several safety features that are now mandatory, such as seat belts. Self-driving status will one day be considered the same way.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

According to the research, as more come out, people will be even less trusting of automation...

If that was true we'd be at negative trust right now, because automation has been happening for 150 years (and, from a technical standpoint, even longer).

LinkPizza posted...

And you call them ordinary people who know nothing about AI. And they may be ordinary people who don't know much about AI (though I sure many know at least a little), but those are the customers. The ones you have to convince to use the stuff...

Yep - and the companies will, the same way they convinced them to buy cell phones and the internet and computers.

LinkPizza posted...

Which means I wasn't using the False Consensus Effect.

When you say, "Everyone knows that..." you're using the False Consensus effect, whether or not you try to justify it with other statements.

LinkPizza posted...

But if it's true, then who cares. Because unlike you, I wasn't using the FCE.

1) It isn't true, so you should care.
2) Cite a single time I've used FCE by claiming that everyone knows my argument is true.
3) "No, U!" counter is up to nine now. Will we hit double digits in the same post?

LinkPizza posted...

The first time you mentioned it (FCE), it was when I said most people wouldn't like to own self-driving cars. And the articles showed that.

Except... they didn't, unless you are using a definition of the word "most" that is unrelated to how the rest of the English-speaking world uses it.

Then again, you used "literally" to mean the exact opposite of the definition of the word, so I guess I shouldn't put it past you...

LinkPizza posted...

Meaning I'm still correct about saying that not what I used since I wasn't basing it off of my own behavioral choices, but off of the choices of people who were part of the polling they did.

Dude, use that CTRL+F function on your keyboard and type "many people" or "most people" and see how often it shows up in your posts, often on subjects completely unrelated to the subject of self-driving cars.

You are 100% applying your worldview to the general population and pretty regularly at that.

LinkPizza posted...

Having the convenience of being able to go wherever whenever is usually what people like...

Which is entirely feasible even if you don't own a self-driving car but instead are part of a rental service.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

Not to mention, with the amount of people who don't like or trust Ai/Robots, those places could end up with more business...

"You have no proof of that."

LinkPizza posted...

And trust drops as more comes out, apparently...

You have no proof that trend will continue.

LinkPizza posted...

Not everyone is going to fire people just because they could get a self-driving vehicle.

You have no proof of that.

LinkPizza posted...

But people would just probably rather drive themselves.

"Probably" meaning you don't actually know.

LinkPizza posted...

You say numbers will rapidly drop on people disliking self-driving cars, but probably not.

You have no proof of that.

LinkPizza posted...

Like the article said, many won't even get into them.

Yes... because they're not common yet. I already explained this to you.

Most people didn't think they would ever use a cell phone or a computer when those came out (hell, I never thought I'd own a cell phone in my life back in the early 90s). Many people thought online banking was risky (my father refused to use any digital payment service until about 10 years ago because he was worried about getting "hacked"). Those objections last until the initial pioneers show that the technology isn't remotely as unsafe or unreliable as the naysayers claim and people start to trust them. That is how it's worked in the past, that is how it will continue to work with self-driving cars.

LinkPizza posted...

Not only that, but I even showed an article that said people are getting less trusting as more comes out.

Again, it's novel tech.

New tech comes in three phases - the "new and mysterious phase" where trust is high because most people don't know about the tech enough to form an opinion, the "I don't trust it" phase where people's natural aversion to new things comes into play, and the "normalization" phase where people realize it's actually fine. We're in that second phase now. We see that with plenty of scientific advancements, from nuclear science to telephones (fun fact: telephones were once seen as hugely controversial because conservatives believed women would use them to cheat on their husbands when they weren't home) to wifi (anyone remember the "wifi causes cancer" nonsense?).

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

Just liking science doesn't mean you want you driving privileges taken away.

Sure - I mean, some science-loving individuals still drive drunk. Doesn't mean drunk driving is a good idea or that those people aren't wrong for doing it.

LinkPizza posted...

The point is that while they probably weren't correct in everything they said, they were correct when they said, "Machines can't replace the heart and soul of a human worker."

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.

LinkPizza posted...

There are people who go to certain food places where it's basically home-cooked meals because the food feels made with love. And many people still make stuff for their families.

While charming, warm-fuzzies are no substitute for commerce.

Yes, people may love your home-cooking business; when you're up against a robot who can make the same food for free, it's still very unlikely it will be a viable business model.

Everybody says they prefer "Mom 'n Pop" stores over big-box giants like Wal-Mart that treat their employees like shit and employ questionable labour practices... but those big box stores still dominate the market, while their Mom 'n Pop competitors fight over table scraps because those unethical business practices make them money and at the end of the day, people are more likely to go with whatever is lightest on their wallet rather than their conscience. The world probably shouldn't be that way, but it is and it's pointless trying to deny that.

LinkPizza posted...

And just because you don't like my personal anecdote doesn't make it less true.

Whether it's true or not is immaterial; it's not statistically significant because it's just one person's (biased) experience in a single region. It has no bearing on the argument at all.

LinkPizza posted...

And some people don't want to fire truckers that have worked for them for years if they don't have to. Many people are fine with their own drivers and still make good money.

Again, warm-fuzzies don't make up for commerce.

My employer had to layoff some of my fellow employees last year during the pandemic. We didn't want to and we didn't do it because we didn't like them; we did it because our business was drying up thanks to pandemic conditions, we were being undercut by competitors, and we weren't bringing in enough work to keep them on staff. With the pandemic crunching everyone's budgets, our usual clients were seeking the cheapest possible options, which frequently wasn't us. And, yes, many of our competitors were making better use of machine learning and AI than we were and were concordantly able to produce similar work with lower budgets, which was a case I made to our management several times (thankfully, they are now investing more in machine learning tech to help make us competitive again).

If you are a trucking company with human drivers, you simply won't be competitive with self-driving trucks. Maybe some people will continue to hire you out of nostalgia or a lack of need to watch their bottom line, but you'll be rapidly pushed to the fringes of the business while your automated competitors eat your lunch.

LinkPizza posted...

You say that anybody who enacts the AI or Robot ban will fall behind, but you also have no proof of that.

You cannot prove a hypothetical. Try again.

That said, there is evidence supporting that which is literally every society that has ever tried to impede its own technological progress.

LinkPizza posted...

For example, if a restaurant does that, many people will probably still eat there if they like the food.

To quote your own argument back at you, "You have no proof of that."

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

And I'm only at work for so long. And do other stuff while I'm there like watching a show with my buddy, or paying a game with him.

Doesn't sound like much of a job to me if that's how you spend your time. You sure you want to be criticizing my work when you're freely admitting that you're basically goofing off on company time?

LinkPizza posted...

And I trust myself and certain friends/family members more than AI.

Sure, because you don't understand how statistics work. I get it.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, AI can have faults.

True, just not as many or as egregious as humans.

I've never said AI were perfect - that was your argument - I just said they're better than we are. And that is unarguably true. Basic statistics says so.

LinkPizza posted...

I shouldn't be forced to put my hand in the life of a machine (or hacker).

You already do on a daily basis, because AI is all around you, whether or not you see it. Hell, all the planes in the sky above you are flying half-automated already.

LinkPizza posted...

And only a tyrannical government would drive regular safe driving, which many humans can do.

Another nonsensical sentence.

Were you maybe imbibing of something a little harder than coffee at work while you were writing this post?

LinkPizza posted...

And driving without a seatbelt is bad because it's safety issue.

99% of the time if you drive without a seatbelt, you will arrive at your destination with no ill effects; we've still banned it because it's unsafe.

99% of the time if you drive with a decent human driver, you will arrive at your destination with no ill effects; when self-driving cars eventually become common, this will eventually be viewed the same way as driving without a seatbelt.

LinkPizza posted...

People should be able to choose. Just like people can choose to eat healthy, or eat junk food. Or people can choose to work a safe or dangerous job.

People don't have the right to drive without a seatbelt. Or drive drunk. Or ignore PPE requirements on hazardous jobsites. We do mandate safety and we will eventually mandate self-driving cars for the exact same reasons.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

Hence why I said digital cameras in the sentence.

Hence why you said digital cameras in what sentence?

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...

And they are still doing pretty well, last I checked.

Then you apparently didn't check very recently, because they've been through corporate bankruptcy and are now a shell of their former self.

Is this that vaunted business acumen you're claiming your mother taught you? Because it's looking like she didn't do a very good job if you think what happened to Kodak is a success...

LinkPizza posted...

Do you know what we're talking about.

Your terrible punctuation (missing question mark on this sentence, for instance), frequent switching of topics, and lack of context to your statements does make it difficult, I freely admit.

LinkPizza posted...

But and after the sentence.

See what I mean? How the fuck am I supposed to try and make sense of this?

LinkPizza posted...

Obviously, it was talking about you asking the question, "The reason why you're using what tense?"

Then all you had to do is post that. The fact that you didn't do that makes your post unclear.

Don't expect me to stop calling out poor post construction if this is what you think decent writing looks like.

LinkPizza posted...

Anyway, I don't have time to proofread everything.

You could just avoid making obvious errors in the first place, but apparently that's expecting too much of you. Speaking of...

LinkPizza posted...

Someone here decides that making tons of (29 in this case) is fine.

Missing subject in the sentence. Poor grammar and punctuation overall. Needs work. See me after class.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

Pretty much everyone will be playing catch up for a while.

Probably. That said, this shortage will be decades in the rearview mirror before most of the world is automated.

LinkPizza posted...

I would think robots would need it, too...

"You would think" meaning you don't know.

LinkPizza posted...

For humans, I'm pretty sure they will be working even in the more automated future.

Depends - "more automated" or "fully automated"?

The former yes, the latter no, and that's sort of a "Uh, yeah, no shit shirlock" statement, given that whether or not humans are working is right there in the name.

LinkPizza posted...

And if something goes wrong with all of them, it's possible the robots you programed to watch the robots would also have something wrong, making it not recognize that something is wrong with the rest.

That sort of a cascading failure in a properly designed system is roughly on par with worrying about a planet-destroying meteor hitting Earth.

LinkPizza posted...

Like was stated in some of the links I showed you, not everyone is fond of robots.

Not everyone is fond of computers either - doesn't mean that computers aren't presently ubiquitous and virtually required to participate in modern society.

LinkPizza posted...

Now, on to Kodak. While digital is the main reason they failed, it wasn't because they switched to digital. It's because they didn't keep up with it.

Which is a distinction without a difference.

Again, you claimed that no company would ever push out a tech that would bankrupt it... except Kodak did just that, something you are tacitly admitting with this statement.

LinkPizza posted...

Digital didn't kill them. Their poor planning did.

Their poor planning regarding digital. In other words yes, digital did kill them because it cut off their traditional business model and they failed to put together a new one in time to save the company.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

Also, I'm talking about physical material, not content like videos.

And why are you only talking about physical material? Most of our world today is digital.

LinkPizza posted...

And again, it's not free. It's "free for us" to use because of the ads.

Exactly - in other words, "free". You don't have to pay for it, it is being provided for you free of charge.

Took you a while, but thank you for admitting I'm right.

LinkPizza posted...

If they couldn't use ads, we'd have to have Youtube red.

And even if you did, you'd still be getting more material for less money than any time in history.

LinkPizza posted...

And the "they" is mostly everybody.

What "they" is mostly everybody?

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...

And you think making a robot will be easy? Because I don't see it being that easy.

"You don't see it" meaning you don't know.

LinkPizza posted...

And it probably won't be cheap.

"Probably" meaning you don't know.

You don't seem to know about most of the stuff you're talking about. Which, given what you're saying, isn't all that surprising.

LinkPizza posted...

Even that one you showed me cost $25,000.

Sure, because it's early days for that technology. Early tech is always expensive.

The earliest computers were the size of a room and cost so much that only large companies and academic institutions could afford them. Today, you can get a computer with more computing power than those early computers for pennies as a child's toy.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

But things do cost more.

Indexed to inflation? No, they don't.

LinkPizza posted...

The price of cars keeps going up. Especially now, with the shortage.

Cars also last longer and have more functions.

Also, you can literally get a used car for a few hundred bucks if you don't mind one with a lot of miles on it.

LinkPizza posted...

And the average price of Roombas quadrupled since they first came out (from 195.99 - about $800 on average).

As posted above, the basic price of a Roomba has remained roughly the same. Indexed to inflation, it's actually cheaper now than when it first came out.

The more expensive versions are the ones that have more functionality or options. Which, y'know, makes sense.

LinkPizza posted...

Even some food places have gone up in price.

"Some food places" does not mean that food overall is more expensive, especially when indexed to inflation.

LinkPizza posted...

Shirts, too. I use to find the shirts with designs of whatever for like $10 all the time. Now the same shirts are almost always $20, doubling in price.

Then go to cheaper shirt places.

Side note: If you are buying shirts for $10 - now or back then - you are paying for sweatshop labour.

LinkPizza posted...

Games, too. Mant games cost the same if you get physical or digital...

I have no idea what "mant games" are, besides more evidence you can't write very well, but the average game is cheaper now than it ever has been. One need only spend a few minutes perusing Steam or gog.com or any of the console online stores and noting the myriad of games for sale for less than $10 to see the effects.

True, Triple-A games are more expensive now than they used to be. But Triple-A games now take tens of thousands of people several years to produce, where thirty years ago all but the biggest game development teams would fit in one room and could pump out a game in a few months. You're not comparing apples to apples because the quality of the product has increased, something you're (likely deliberately) failing to account for.

You can get cheaper products or better products, but it's difficult to get both.

LinkPizza posted...

I mean, my cable company didn't want to pay more for some channel they already had, so dropped them.

Your personal anecdotes are not statistically significant. Dunno how many more times you need to be told that.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
Basically, you're saying sucky free things are available (which most aren't free, anyway). So, pointless shit, then...

I mean, you're using it right now, so that doesn't speak very highly of how you spend your time if you consider it "pointless shit".

LinkPizza posted...
Whoever owns the robots owns the material.

And if no one owns the robots?

Independent or publicly-owned robots are not out of the question for a fully automated world.

LinkPizza posted...
Lots of places where people mine stuff is owned by somebody. And if that land is privately owned, that persons normally get paid and compensated for people to get the material or whatever is there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain

LinkPizza posted...
Somebody already owns the rights to those places where the materials come from. They are the ones who you pay to get materials from. Like how we do right now...

That "somebody" is the government, meaning they can make those resources publicly available or mine them with their own fleet of robots and distribute it to the populace.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And a decent laptop apparently cost around $800-$1000.

Oh, look, here's a laptop on the first site I looked at for less than half that cost: https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/asus-l510-15-6-laptop-star-black-intel-celeron-n4020-64gb-emmc-4gb-ram-windows-10-s/15312409

And here's one for less than a quarter: https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/ASUS-11-6-Chromebook-C202-Intel-Celeron-N3060-4GB-RAM-16GB-eMMC-Chrome-OS-Refurbished-90-Day-Warranty/PRD1L2GBKNZ0DZX

Again, please stop telling easily disprovable lies.

LinkPizza posted...
And most smart phones cost over $500 and rising.

Google Pixel costs $350. https://store.google.com/product/pixel_4a?dclid=CPq29si29_ACFYeU7Aod-RwNIQ&hl=en-GB

The Moto G Power costs just $190. https://tinyurl.com/3s4pthe6

Hell, the TCL 10 5G UW is a 5G phone that costs just $400.

Do you really think I'm not going to notice when you keep trying to lie your way out of these points?

LinkPizza posted...
As for youtube, those videos would be on tv.

What videos would be on TV?

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...
And you could probably just record them like people use to do.

"Probably". Meaning you don't actually know.

LinkPizza posted...
And yes. The world is in a bad place. And Automation makes it worse because money will still be needed.

Except it won't, as I've already shown.

You can have a far nicer life with far less money now than at any other point in our species' existence. The amount of "stuff" - from educational content to entertainment to how-to videos - available to you for free on the internet is staggering. Refuse to acknowledge it all you want, but you know that I'm right.

LinkPizza posted...
You the one making my arguments for me.

"No, U!" count up to eight now.

LinkPizza posted...
Even if things would be free in the future (which they won't, but hypothetically), the transition period would be horrible.

It absolutely has the potential to be, yes. That's why this transition has to be very carefully managed. Congratulations on catching up to the thing I posted a few hundred posts ago.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And no. Your lunch isn't free. You friend paid for it. It was literally paid for. It's just that you didn't pay for it.

Meaning it's free, at least from your perspective.

If you disagree with this, then literally nothing free has ever existed in the history of humanity outside of robbery, because someone always paid for something somewhere along the way. Which is, y'know, a completely ridiculous way to look at it and not something any normal person would think.

If a restaurant gave you a free meal, you could use this logic to say, "Nuh-uh, it's not free! The restaurant paid for the ingredients and the cook to make it! It's not free because somebody paid for it!" Which, again, is absolute nonsense.

LinkPizza posted...
And if you had read my other post, you see I consider free sample as free.

So if your friend pays for it, it's not free, but if a company pays for it, it is free?

That's really stupid and logically inconsistent.

LinkPizza posted...
But you still had to buy it initially. Which means it's not free.

Except you consider free samples free, which - by your own logic - shouldn't be considered free because you needed to pay for clothes in order to be allowed inside the business without getting arrested.

You've literally reduced yourself to arguing against the English language. Seriously, take the loss and move on from this point.

LinkPizza posted...
And it doesn't dodge the point.

What doesn't dodge the point?

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...
And for a digital book, you could give it away for free... to anybody who had a way to read it. If you don't have a way to read it, then having a digital copy doesn't really matter...

That's like saying someone giving away pamphlets isn't giving them away for free, since you needed to pay in order to learn how to read as a child.

Please, stop this utterly nonsensical argument, you're just embarrassing yourself now.

LinkPizza posted...
The point is that internet is not free...

Did you pay money when you signed up for GameFAQs? No? Then it's free.

Deal with it.

LinkPizza posted...
And again, it doesn't reduce the cost to zero. It just means less people have to get paid.

Which is precisely the point of this whole side tangent, so thank you for acknowledging I'm right.

Less people being paid means less payment required. You could have an entire archive's worth of literary material, an entire music store's worth of songs, and more video than you could ever watch, all for the cost of an internet connection. You could not do that in years gone by. You were attempting to argue - incorrectly - that digitization and automation had not made anything cheaper when they objectively have. More stuff is available - for free - now than at any other point in human history, and that's all thanks to technology. You can keep stuffing your head in the ground to try to deny it, but you know that it's true, because you are literally posting on one of those free products in order to carry on this argument. AI and full automation simply takes this trend to its logical conclusion by reducing all remaining costs to zero via the removal of humans from the process.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
One mistake on their part could cost me my life.

One mistake on a human driver's part could cost you your life and you put your life in tens of thousands' of their hands every time you go out for a drive.

Difference is, the robot is far, far less likely to make a mistake than the human driver is.

LinkPizza posted...
Not only that, but it made mention of the three rules.

You are aware that this is a complete non-sequitur, right?

Asimov's three laws are a work of fiction, not something that was ever based on reality. I have no idea why you thought this was even relevant to bring up.

LinkPizza posted...
We already have humans who don't. so...

So... what?

Finish your sentences, please.

LinkPizza posted...
Either way, the third article does more harm than good, and proves my point better that we shouldn't have them...

But we already do. Stop trying to think of this in terms of, "We shouldn't have technology that already exists."

Never once in the history of civilization has anyone succeeded in banning a technology, because technology, at its core, is just an idea and you can't ban ideas. This is precisely why roboticists are working to understand the pitfalls of automation and AI so that they can better tailor the end-product to be as helpful as possible for humanity, something you already said you support.

LinkPizza posted...
As for the internet, you mention the library and Starbucks, which are two places that usually have opening and closing times.

https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowUserReviews-g181716-d4107456-r187624217- Starbucks-Richmond_British_Columbia.html
https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowUserReviews-g60878-d4997432-r334836513- Starbucks-Seattle_Washington.html

LinkPizza posted...
Plus, with Starbucks, it's still not free since you're have to order a drink to stay inside, or get arrested, apparently...

So sit outside. Wifi doesn't stop at the door.

LinkPizza posted...
The laundromat down the street, for example, has "free Wi-Fi"... As long as you're doing laundry.

Which you would be doing anyways if you're going there... so yay, free Wifi!

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
But also, I never said my reason for things not being free is because "everyone knows it."

You literally (note: actual literally, not whatever nonsense definition you're using for the word) said: "Thinking everything will be free just because is pretty bad reasoning. And literally everyone knows it. Except for some people on this site like you..."

LinkPizza posted...
And you'd actually save us a bunch of time if you knew many terms and looked up stuff.

The fact you need to look all these things up says a lot more about your lack of familiarity with the subject material than anything I'm doing.

LinkPizza posted...
So, obviously, the music example is the one you put forward.

Which one? I have listed several.

This is what I mean about your vaunted "context clues" being vague to the point of uselessness. You think you're specifying what you're talking about, but with statements that only make sense inside your own head.

LinkPizza posted...
You said, "As an example, you can go on Youtube and listen to a song written by a robot for free" as a counterpoint when I said robots would be giving stuff away for free. But I said I was talking about the physical things. Which would be things I mentioned (cars and roombas).

Then literally all you had to say is, "I was talking about physical things, like cars and roombas."

See? That's context that actually helps the conversation instead of your random statements.

LinkPizza posted...
I mean, roombas were invented in 2002. The factories have probably become more automated than they were before. Yet Roombas still cost $800. Which is way up from their price in 2002, which was only $200. So, not only did automation not make them cheaper, but they got more expensive...

Here is a Roomba, for sale, on the official site, for $230.

https://www.irobot.com/roomba/600-series

Please stop lying. It is simply embarrassing having to correct these obvious errors in your posts. If you actually looked things up half as much as you claim, you wouldn't make these mistakes.

LinkPizza posted...
The factories have probably become more automated than they were before.

"Probably." Meaning you don't actually know.

Please cite your source showing that the Roomba factory is more automated now than it was in 2002.

LinkPizza posted...
As for your Articles about whether people like robots or not, the first one is talking about a robotic dog. Which seems closer to the kid toys.

Robots can take whatever form you want. If you want your food cooked by an anthropomorphic chameleon, there's no reason a robot couldn't take that shape. Part of what is being done to make robots more marketable is to understand what forms humans are and aren't comfortable with.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
You can still use past events if things haven't changed much to predict the future pretty reliably in many cases.

Sure. And the development of AI and machine learning constitutes a fairly substantive change in this context.

Never before has a technology emerged that threatens to make humans obsolete en masse. We've created plenty of machines in the past that have rendered human physical labour obsolete, but never one that makes human mental labour and decision-making capacity obsolete, yet that's exactly what AI does.

LinkPizza posted...
Like buying food, paying rent and bills, buying clothes for different weather and environments, and the materials for whatever it is you need that you could potentially make.

Of those, only real estate is something that could not be produced by an entirely automated workforce with no human interaction.

LinkPizza posted...
So, no. I wouldn't have said that.

Given your wildly reactionist viewpoints in this topic, I'm guessing you would have.

LinkPizza posted...
When used informally, it can mean "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true."

Cool.

You're not in an informal setting, you're presenting an argument.

Words have meanings. Get used to it.

LinkPizza posted...
As for the "No U!" argument, if it's true, it's true.

But it's not, so it isn't.

LinkPizza posted...
Also, it seems to be an obviously typo since it's one letter (and 'r' and 'n' actually look pretty similar), but I guess you can pretend you don't know what I was saying.

What seems to be "an obviously typo"?

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...
And the Alleged Certainty fallacy is saying that without proof.

Saying what without proof?

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!

LinkPizza posted...
If my robot is mining some material that's hard to get, that material belongs to me because my robot mined it. So, you would have to pay me for it.

In which case, I won't use your robot, I'll use my robot. Problem solved, no need to pay you.

LinkPizza posted...
And the world starts to turn into one of those dystopian futures from different forms of media. I mean, it's easy to see.

The False Consensus effect light is blinking again.

Also those "different forms of media" you reference are all fiction. You understand that, right? Terminator is a story created for entertainment, not a documentary on the fate of the human race.

LinkPizza posted...
But because so many humans are still working, people still get paid. But only those working. There's barely enough jobs now. Once half of all jobs are gone, we'll have much less. And other jobs could actually afford to pay less since many people would jump at the opportunity to work any job for almost any amount, and people would be easily replaced. It just sounds like a shitty future. But barely anybody will care until it starts to affect them in certain ways. That's the problem...

No, the problem is that the safety net will need to be strengthened to prepare for a world where humans are still involved but there's not enough jobs for everyone to work. That's not an impossible premise, but it will require creative thinking and significant political will and direction, something that is sorely lacking at the moment.

LinkPizza posted...
And there's no real way to just do away with money. And if that was going to be the end game, then places where people make a ton of money won't fully automate because they lose power once they start losing money, or if money was no more. And they won't want to lose any power...

Whether they "want" to lose power has nothing to do with whether or not they will.

I'm pretty sure Kodak, one of the wealthiest companies in the world, didn't "want" to go bankrupt because of improvements in technology, but it happened anyways.

LinkPizza posted...
It will always be meaningful as long as people need it to get something...

Which they won't, because robots will be making our goods and providing our services.

LinkPizza posted...
You seem to think when everything automated, people are just going to start giving away their products. While that would be nice, people aren't that nice.

Again, they do it now. I've already posted a lengthy list of things you can get online completely for free. That is literally someone giving away their products for free.

LinkPizza posted...
And please don't act like I'm the one misconstruing arguments when you've been doing that the whole time.

This is "No, u!" number seven, by my count.

Do you seriously not have any response to criticism that isn't "I am rubber, you are glue"?

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
Also, they are immaterial to any post since all of the stuff I asked them was from these post.

Correct, they *are* immaterial to any post. Thank you for admitting this.

LinkPizza posted...
So, they are some of the most material answer available...

As I already explained, even if you did actually ask them all this question (which you cannot prove) and they did provide the answer that they don't think this will happen (which you also cannot prove) that has absolutely no bearing on whether any of them are right. That is why it's immaterial. At best, it is their opinions, which - given that none of them are experts in this field, nor participating in this argument - amounts to nothing of any import.

You are once again falling for the False Consensus effect, even after I had previously pointed it out to you.

LinkPizza posted...
While I work with a lot of them, we don't always agree on things. We actually have a lot of different opinions on many things. We still get along well because we don't really need to agree on everything. Not only that, but their were some that I didn't know too well, either. So it wasn't all friends. But it's still like I said, which is that it's close to the results of a sample group of a study. It'd just be a small one.

Hey, look, another personal anecdote, this one just as unimportant as the last.

LinkPizza posted...
And while it's impossible to completely remove humans, that doesn't mean the price needs to remain the same.

Completely remove humans from what? The price of what needs to remain the same?

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...
And that's because the reason to replace people is for more profits.

Of course, but profit is revenue minus expenses (something you should have learned if you're as business-savvy as you later claim from apparently absorbing business skills from your mother via osmosis). If revenue drops (from, for instance, a price drop), you can still increase your profits on a per-unit basis if expenses drop more (like, for instance, if you automate your work force). Which is to say nothing from the expected increase in profits from more units sold if you reduce the price of said units.

LinkPizza posted...
And that means whoever owns the robots own the materials.

Says who?

In most countries, subsurface land is owned by the government and is sold to mining interests as needed. If a robot mining program took off, it need only be on government-owned land, which would remove the need for a private owner to pay off.

LinkPizza posted...
Because in the end, someone still owns them. That's what you don't seem to understand. Just because things are fully automated doesn't mean people won't still need to be paid.

Of course it will.

Money is a representation of human labour. Not robot labour, human labour. I will explain this to you as many times as it takes for it to stick.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
Which Target and Wal-Mart should be planning for...

The fact that they're not should tell you something about the quality of this particular idea of yours.

LinkPizza posted...
I know what a personal anecdote is.

Apparently you don't if your posts are any indication.

LinkPizza posted...
Like I do with all my info, I look up stuff to have actual proof.

Which you conveniently almost never post.

LinkPizza posted...
Something you seem to lack a lot of...

Largely because most of the things that I'm posting are pretty basic knowledge that I wouldn't think needed sources, but if you want them for anything I post, ask and ye shall receive.

LinkPizza posted...
And the reason mine wasn't a personal anecdote is because it wasn't a story of any kind. I was stating what other people had told me in relation to a question.

Which is an anecdote. You're telling a story of asking other people and relaying their answers. That is not a verified fact, that is your personal retelling of a story that has no bearing on what is being talked about.

LinkPizza posted...
Unless every time you ask a question, it's a personal anecdote.

If I tell you that I asked people around me a question and relay their answers, that is a personal anecdote, for reasons I already explained several times.

LinkPizza posted...
And it's not unverifiable.

It is 100% unverifiable.

If you want me to believe you actually did this, get all the people you asked to post here, verify that they know you in real life, explain what the question was you asked them and give their own answers. If you can't or won't do that, you cannot verify that you actually asked anyone this question, nor that you are relaying their answers accurately. I have no way to know that you're not just lying through your teeth on this or that you didn't ask the question in a leading way to provoke the answer you wanted.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
Oak stead was actually supposed to be "instead". I probably wrote that on my phone, which changes corrects words into other things.

"Probably", meaning you don't remember. For all the bragging you're doing about your amazing memory, it doesn't speak highly of you that you can't even remember what device you used to type up a post that's only a few days old.

LinkPizza posted...
I'm pretty sure you only mentioned something about company A and B once. Are you saying you can't even remember you own post from like a week or so ago?

You're "pretty sure" I only mentioned it once? Then you don't remember either, or else you would be sure. And, as above, your accusation of me being unable to remember my post is all kinds of hilarious considering you can't even remember what device you wrote your posts on, nevermind their content.

Regardless, you simply threw out the "Company A" statement and it was not clear from your post that that sentence was a response to something I had said earlier. This is what I mean when I said you need to provide context. You're making both arguments and responses in your posts and it's often not clear which is which (and, when you are responding to something, what it is you're responding to).

This is why I'm saying you don't actually understand context; if you did, you'd understand why your supposed "context clues" are actually ambiguous nonsense.

LinkPizza posted...
And my old arguments haven't been "debunked". You just don't' like them.

I explained, at length, why they're wrong. That is the definition of debunked.

LinkPizza posted...
And they don't have to automate their entire work force to get back money on having more self-checkouts.

Who doesn't?

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...
If they had more, they could fire/lay-off more people. Which would start getting them more money since they could pay less people.

I've explained this to you already and at this point I can only imagine that you're deliberately trying to stick your head in the ground to avoid acknowledging that you're wrong.

These stores currently still require at least some human employees to do tasks like stock the shelves and take inventory. Yet those jobs are not things that can be done full time; as such, rather than inefficiently either hire someone to only come in for a couple hours a day (something few are willing to do, as it doesn't pay a decent enough wage for such short hours to be worth it) or have their staff standing around idle, they have them man tills in order to increase speed of payment and customer satisfaction.

LinkPizza posted...
Not only that, but they could let some of the self-checkouts "rest" sometimes. Which could increase the normal life of them since they didn't have to be used 24/7.

The fuck? Do you seriously not understand how machines and depreciation work?

Machines don't need to "rest" - that's part of the benefit of having them replace humans in the first place. That is you projecting human needs onto an inhuman object. Whether a machine runs constantly or not at all has surprisingly little effect on its lifespan in an industrial setting, nor on their projected lifespan. You want to replace machinery when it's economical to do so, especially in a world with fast-evolving tech.

LinkPizza posted...
Like with 12 lanes (with would be 4 a group like they normally have), they could use 4 a week. Which could increase life by about 3x the original life.

Your suggestion is that a company triple their up-front costs and triple their losses from depreciation, all so that the machines can get their beauty sleep? That's adorable.

It's not how the real world works, though. You buy the number of machines you need, you run them until their life cycle ends, then you buy the newer, better machines once the replacement window comes up. Tripling your costs means that, at best, you're simply paying more to saddle yourself with old technology for longer. It's less cost-effective and it uses up valuable business real estate, which is why no one does it.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
So if anyone is making kneejerk reactions, it seems to be you since I'm pulling my info from articles and stuff... Like I'm not just making up these flaws. I'm getting them from articles.

Yes, you're getting your information from "articles" instead of actual understanding of the principles at play - I picked up on that a few replies ago.

Are you familiar with the DunningKruger effect?

LinkPizza posted...
And you act like I'm the only one making predictions.

No, I'm acting like you're the only one making predictions that aren't based on actual fact or realistic assumptions. Again, you literally posted a few paragraphs up from this quote that we'll be banned from cooking our own food - that's the level of realism I'm stuck dealing with from you.

As I mentioned, there's a difference between someone predicting that global warming will cause serious effects on our species and someone who predicts that global warming will stop when the martians turn off their rayguns. Both of those are predictions, but they're not equally valid predictions.

LinkPizza posted...
And defenses are improving. But I believe hackers are improving faster.

Then you believe wrong.

LinkPizza posted...
Especially if some companies like Google have decided to hire hackers to help with their defenses...

Like industries have been doing since the 70s?

LinkPizza posted...
So, when I say it could be hacked to get your personal info, I'm not talking about how you like you food cooked. I'm talking about things like Name, Address, SSN, CC info, etc.

That's something hackers already can get... by hacking your phone. Or your employer's computer system. Or the government.

Even entertaining the hypothetical that your personal chef-bot would have reason to know the above information, that info is already out there and there are considerably more efficient ways for hackers to access it (hackers don't care about you personally, they want as large a trove of info for as many different users as they can get; your personal AI is not nearly as tempting a target as, say, a phone company that has the names, addresses, and credit card numbers of millions of their customers).

LinkPizza posted...
You're definitely being disingenuous if you thought I was talking about people learning how you liked your food cooked.

You postulated this hypothetical when talking about a cooking robot being hacked. Why would your chef-bot know your SSN?

As usual, you're blaming me for your own poorly-constructed arguments. It's not my fault if your arguments lack context.

LinkPizza posted...
You were the one who said, "People "want" a lot of things, but aren't willing to pay the cost." So, I said, "People will pay the cost when they think the cost is worth it"... It quite simple...

See, this is an example of properly quoting the text you were responding to. Congratulations, you did it!

Anyways, you're correct that people will pay the cost when they think the cost is worth it... but the reverse is also true. People will put up with lesser service if they think the discount is worth it. Case in point, Wal-Mart sells largely cheap garbage - there are higher-quality goods made under more ethical conditions available at pretty much any other store. Yet people still shop there because it's cheap. If you told someone, "Hey, we can give you a 20% discount on your shopping, but you'll have to wait in line an extra few minutes", a significant portion of the population would happily make that trade, especially those living near (or under) the poverty line.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And again, telling it you liked it better last time doesn't do anything. You would need to give it some kind of direction to move to.

*sigh*

No, you don't.

Seriously, if you're going to argue this topic, at least do yourself a favour and learn the basics of how machine learning works. It's painfully apparent you are completely clueless on the subject.

Here's your first lesson. Machine learning is an iterative process. When a machine is trying to perfect its ability to complete a task, it takes the most successful way it has previously determined to do the task (in this case, cook a recipe) and changes some parameter about how it cooks the dish. Maybe it alters the cooking time or temperature, maybe it changes the ingredients. It will then evaluate the outcome of the task - in this case, by presenting you with the finished dish and asking if you liked it better than last time. If you say no, then it determines that the changes it made from its previous attempt moved it further away from the goal and it goes back to the original way it made it and iterates a different way. Maybe this time it adds or removes some spices. And maybe this time you say, "Yes, this was better than last time." Now the AI has a new "most successful" way it made the dish and, on future attempts, it will iterate off that recipe rather than the old one.

This is machine learning 101. If you do not understand the process of how machines learn, your continued participation in this discussion is pointless because you're going on at considerable length about things you have no knowledge of.

LinkPizza posted...
And my point about getting a stuff made a certain way at certain restaurant can kill a restaurant.

Yes. And?

LinkPizza posted...
When your own personal robot cooks food, you don't pay the robot. Buying the robot only gives money to the place you bought it from when you bought it. But if you already own the robot, it just makes food from the ingredients you have. You wouldn't pay it, nor would it charge you to make any food... You would still have to buy the ingredients, but that different. And that doesn't help the restaurant in any way...

If the choice is "keep restaurants" or "destroy restaurants, but everyone gets cheap, restaurant quality food made right in their kitchen anytime they want", then bye-bye restaurants.

Sometimes businesses die thanks to new technology. It's sad, but inevitable. The electric light bulb killed the lamp-lighter industry, the refrigerator killed the milk-delivery business, and the printing press did away with the scribe profession. Restaurants may one day join those industries in the dust-bin of history.

LinkPizza posted...
To the point where I think it was Google using hackers to make their systems better.

If you are only now learning about white-hat hackers (or think that Google is the only one using them to test security and that them doing so is in any way novel), you are decades behind on your technological knowledge. White hats have been a thing for almost 50 years now and are regularly employed by security-sensitive sectors (including, yes, banks).

LinkPizza posted...
Not only that, but if someone is able to hack an AI, or at least get the AI to do whatever it wants, they could probably use the AI to actually hack banks.

Probably, but by the same token you can set up a security-AI to catch hacker-bots and they will likely be much better funded to do so.

LinkPizza posted...
And I'm not opposed to all technology. I'm opposed to technology that takes jobs away from people.

That is pretty close to "all technology" by definition. Technology in general exists to make work easier, which means people need to spend fewer hours and less effort doing it. That translates to less jobs overall.

There's a reason why we've gone from 90+% of the species being involved in gathering/cultivating food to less than 10% of the population doing so today.

LinkPizza posted...
As for your "knowledge of AI", it seems like you're just pulling stuff out of nowhere.

Again, parts of this are literally my job.

Honestly, none of what I'm telling you is all that esoteric in terms of machine-learning knowledge; you just don't seem to have any real backing on the subject.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
Plus, for stuff like art, food, video games, and many other things, they robots don't have to be perfect to make something perfect.

Oh, good, you're conceding that robots will eventually be perfect at these things. Thank you for conceding that robots will be able to make better art, food, and video games than humans could and for tacitly admitting via this logic that AI will be superior to humans in many different fields. I will be sure to come back to this point later.

LinkPizza posted...
And you say my predictions and theories have no basis in reality, but they have as much as yours do.

If I predict that global warming is a serious threat to the global ecology and will cause significant devastation, ecological damage, and societal unrest if left unchecked, while you argue that global warming is the result of aliens from Mars pointing their rayguns at us and they'll stop in a couple years, both of those are predictions about the unknown, but only one of them is based on rational analysis.

My posts on AI are based on actual knowledge of the technology, as my job as an engineer involves using machine-learning programs on a fairly regular basis and I have an interest in AI advancements above and beyond my job requirements. Your posts are very clearly based on a lack of knowledge and what you think is logical based on a poor understanding of the technology in question.

LinkPizza posted...
You act like you actually know everything about them, and think they can do everything when you have nothing to actually base it on.

Wrong. You either completely misremembered my posts or are trying to deliberately misconstrue them.

At no point did I say that AI can (present tense) do everything; they very clearly cannot. One day, however? They will be able to replace humans in 90+% of the jobs we do now. And, honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that day comes in my lifetime. Future tech seems incredibly futuristic until you're actually holding it in your hands (how many people in 2005 would have guessed that within five years time, an Apple-manufactured cell phone would take over the planet?).

And AI are already involved in far more fields than most people appreciate. Lawyers, doctors, engineers, artists, newspapers, computer programmers, movie studios, and law enforcement, to name just a few significant industries, are all increasingly incorporating robots and AI into their work, and the more tasks AI take over, the faster they will start to replace humans.

LinkPizza posted...
As for the food, the problem is that not everyone actually knows what they want different with the food.

They don't need to - I've explained this to you several times already. They just need to say whether they liked it better or worse than the last time the robot cooked it. That will tell the robot whether the changes they made moved it closer to or farther from their goal.

LinkPizza posted...
If you tell a robot that you want less of an ingredient that isn't even in the dish, they'll probably end up making it the same since there was nothing to change since the ingredient was never in the dish to begin with.

"Probably", meaning you don't know.

Machine learning doesn't work that way. You don't have to dictate to a robot what ingredients you want increased or lessened; if it worked that way, that's not machine learning, that's just you operating a blind cooking-machine.

LinkPizza posted...
But sometimes, the better chefs know what they want. And can figure it out.

You already admitted that a robot, given enough time, can perfect a dish. You're arguing against yourself at this point.

LinkPizza posted...
Because the robot is doing exactly what you tell it to do.

More proof that you don't know how machine learning actually works.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
As for stopping people from using a robot to analyze the food, there is an easy way to stop it. Make laws for it, and set restrictions on the robots. Sure, people can hack and get past those restrictions, but not everybody can.

Not everyone has to. All it takes is one person to "hack" their robot and work out the food information and they can claim to have made up the recipe themselves and sell it to the cookbot manufacturers.

Again, recipes aren't copywritable. There's nothing illegal about this and no meaningful way it could be made illegal.

LinkPizza posted...
Riots will ensue when restaurants start getting recipes stolen from restaurants all over the world. As in, the people who either work in the restaurants (who lose their jobs because no one is buying food from their restaurants, so they lose their job), or from people who own restaurants who are getting their recipes stolen (especially places like local restaurants). So, yes, I believe riots will ensue when food tasting robots starts ruining people's lives...

Having worked in the food industry when I was a student, I think you vastly overestimate the attachment 90% of restaurant employees have to their job or their industry. Yeah, the restaurant owner might be ready to march in the street; his line chefs that he pays $9.00 an hour to won't be particularly driven to join him.

LinkPizza posted...
Also, I wasn't saying you couldn't cook your own food, though with us being slaves to the AI and whoever controls the money, maybe we won't be able to.

This is a hilariously bad take.

You cannot ban an idea. AI cannot straight-up stop people from cooking their own food.

LinkPizza posted...
Even starting with just the number of people that work in restaurants, or have worked in restaurants, you'd already have more than 1% of homes.

There are currently 12.5 million restaurant employees in the United States. Given that that includes non-cooking staff such as managers and wait-staff, as well as those who work at fast-food places essentially following proscribed steps to prepare a pre-cooked meal rather than actually making restaurant-quality food, I'd charitably say that maybe a tenth of those employees are "restaurant-quality" cooks. Not even good cooks like a robot would be, just decent enough to make a living off of it.

Even assuming that those cooks were evenly spread throughout the country, that is still less than 1% of homes in the US.

LinkPizza posted...
Anyway, we don't know if we'll still be able to cook.

Yes, we 100% do and yes, we will.

Seriously, please keep your objections somewhere in the vicinity of rationality, I'm getting very tired of disproving your strange dystopian fantasies...

LinkPizza posted...
And restaurants may even shut down. Who would go to pay at a restaurant most of the time if you could have your own robot do it for you?

You're saying that a future where you are able to get restaurant quality food, in your house, any time you want, for a price far, far lower than you would get at a business... is bad?

Do you seriously not understand what you're suggesting here?

LinkPizza posted...
Though, apparently, imperfections are what make the art better. According to art experts, I guess.

"You guess"? So, again, you don't know. Which means the AI is already good enough to fool you and people like you.

Art experts may criticize, as art experts are wont to do, but the AI will be providing goods that are good enough for the overwhelming majority of the population and are and will be getting better all the time.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...

For the context clues, you don't have to scroll back a dozen post. As I said if you would read what I typed it was that the clues are usually in the next sentence or two.

Except that's not the case or I wouldn't be calling you out on it.

If your posts are poorly constructed, don't expect me to do your work for you.

LinkPizza posted...

And my context clues aren't ambiguous to the point of worthlessness.

They 100% are, dude.

LinkPizza posted...

As for copywriting, I'm just telling you what the law said. Something about being able to protect the creative expression associated with a recipe.

"Something about"? Meaning you don't know.

Here, allow me to educate you on the subject: recipes are not copywritable. Period. This is not debatable at all.

From here: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf

"Recipes
A recipe is a statement of the ingredients and procedure required for making a dish of food. A mere listing of ingredients or contents, or a simple set of directions, is uncopyrightable. As a result, the Office cannot register recipes consisting of a set of ingredients and a process for preparing a dish. In contrast, a recipe that creatively explains or depicts how or why to perform a particular activity may be copyrightable. A registration for a recipe may cover the written description or explanation of a process that appears in the work, as well as any photographs or illustrations that are owned by the applicant. However, the registration will not cover the list of ingredients that appear in each recipe, the underlying process for making the dish, or the resulting dish itself. The registration will also not cover the activities described in the work that are procedures, processes, or methods of operation, which are not subject to copyright protection.

Examples: Jules Kinder submits an application to register a cookbook, Pie in the Sky. In the Author Created field of the application, Kinder asserts a claim in text, photographs, and compilation of ingredients. Each recipe contains a list of ingredients, instructions for making a pie, and a photograph of the finished product. The claim in a compilation of ingredients will not be accepted because there is no copyrightable authorship in a mere listing of ingredients. Since this claim is not acceptable, the Office may communicate with Jules Kinder to limit the extent of the registration to the text and photographs only. Paulina Neumann submits an application to register a recipe for caesar salad dressing. In the Author Created field, Neumann asserts a claim in text. The work consists of a list of eleven ingredients with the following instructions: (1) puree anchovies, garlic, Dijon, egg yolks; (2) drizzle oil in gradually to emulsify; (3) add lemon, parmesan cheese, salt, pepper, Worcestershire and tabasco sauce. The Office will refuse registration for this work, because the list of ingredients is uncopyrightable, and the instructional text contains an insufficient amount of creative authorship."

Emphasis mine.

In essence, while you could copyright a cookbook or how a recipe is presented, the recipe itself is not subject to copyright and anyone can use it without permission or paying royalties.

LinkPizza posted...

And the problem I see is that robots will be able to steal those recipes.

You can't have something "stolen" from you if it doesn't belong to you in the first place.

Again, recipes are not copywritable. If they were, you wouldn't be able to cook a hamburger for yourself unless you paid McDonalds for the right to do so.

LinkPizza posted...

I mean, how would you being able to make the restaurant food at home not cost the restaurant money? If you had a robot that could make you the exact same food just like the restaurant does at home for less money, why would you go to pay more at the restaurant for things other than things like parties and get-togethers.

You wouldn't. As a result, restaurants would have to change their business model, as most businesses facing changing technology do. Expect to see them shift to more of a lounge-style get together area rather than somewhere whose main selling point is food.

LinkPizza posted...

So, I 100% expect industry reps to step in.

And do what? They have no legal power and any lobbying they do will be opposed by the (much larger and more well-equipped) big tech lobby.

Moreover, you can't outlaw an idea. The robots are merely working off of publicly available information. There is no meaningful way to ban that technological process, nor would anyone outside the food industry want to.

LinkPizza posted...

As for the Chef's teaching them, just because they can't copyright the recipe in the normal way doesn't mean they are forced to tell anybody the recipe or how to cook it. So, again, Many chefs may not actually teach the robots how to do anything. Which I'm totally fine with...

Yet you already conceded that the robots are fully capable of working out the dish on their own, whether or not the chef wants to cooperate.

If you're a chef and you have the option between selling your recipe to an interested robot manufacturer for potentially millions of dollars or simply letting them work it out on their own and eventually wind up with nothing, you'd be an idiot not to take the former.

---

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!

Unless there's signage that says, "Parking restricted to customers of _________, max time XX minutes", pretty sure it's legal to park in those places.

Even then, if you're in that lot when the business is closed, there's roughly a 0% chance you will face any repercussions for it. No one will be at the business to report your vehicle and get it towed, and no business will pay parking enforcement to patrol their lot outside of business hours.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
As I said, something could end up blocking the view. Or there could be a glare.

Something that is true for humans as well as AI, save for the fact that self-driving cars have more points of view as opposed to a human's one, making it harder to completely obstruct their vision.

LinkPizza posted...
So, again, "It's possible other cars don't stop to hand over their recording if they weren't involved

They won't need to, because the cars that were involved will have their recordings to hand over.

LinkPizza posted...
And it's not a known fact that it's better since we don't have them as commonplace on the road yet.

Doesn't matter, since more AI drivers will behave more predictably, not less. Each new self-driving car on the road makes the road safer for additional AI cars, not more dangerous.

LinkPizza posted...
For all you know, mayhem will break loose as soon as too many are on the road...

Pointless and baseless scaremongering.

Self-driving cars have driven in test facilities filled with other self-driving cars. Carmageddon has not been the end result (somewhat amusingly, the biggest hiccup observed was that the cars were too courteous to one another as a result of each expecting the other car to be an asshole human driver instead of an AI that drove defensively).

LinkPizza posted...
And I can say you definitely said my bus station was going to get self-driving buses.

So prove it.

LinkPizza posted...
And you can doubt my memory, It's still better than yours.

Given how badly you've misrepresented things within this topic alone, I seriously doubt that.

You seem to be a fan of making up stuff that didn't happen, so I honestly don't trust you to accurately recollect a conversation we had years ago.

LinkPizza posted...
And money does allow people to dodge laws. That's why the rich can usually do whatever they want. They have lawyers who can back them up and find the loopholes to say that what they're doing is ok. This literally happens all the time. Rich people get away with all sorts of things all the time. And they can easily pay settlements to avoid having to worry about certain things at a certain time. Money runs this world, so the rich basically run this world... So, I don't' know what they said to whoever. But if the small buses are running, then they did something. Because none of the small buses you showed my had anything resembling the bus could secure a wheelchair... So, again. It's probably money and loopholes getting them through this without them getting in trouble...

You know who doesn't have a lot of money that lets them dodge legal obligations?

Municipal governments.

Take a guess at who is running bus routes.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
For example, the scenario I described could easily happen.

No, it couldn't.

If you want to prove that it could, provide a source. Since you've already admitted that you can't, this is pointless speculation on your part.

LinkPizza posted...
So, I don't think it's coming out anytime soon. But what about you. Do you think they're coming out soon, or in decades?

You switch from singular to plural here, so I have no idea what you mean by "it" or "they". Are you talking about self-driving cars? Because those are out now. Widespread self driving cars, such that you won't be able to avoid going in one? Coming soon. Completely self-driving car force with human drivers banned? Decades away.

Please, clean up your posts. Reading through these is such a headache.

LinkPizza posted...
And I'd rather prove that it's a valid concern before people get hurt or die from it. That's how things should be. But I guess who cares about a few deaths until after it happens.

This from the guy who earlier argued he wasn't worried about babies dying in hot cars and who is also pushing hard to keep human drivers around instead of switching to AI, something that will cost tens of thousands of people their lives every year.

Don't get sanctimonious with me over deaths. Far more people will die to human drivers the longer the switch to AI cars is put off than to this ridiculous non-scenario you've came up with that won't ever happen.

LinkPizza posted...
I'm pretty sure I even mentioned in another post that the same thing could happen to human drivers, didn't I?

You have - and in so doing, admitted this isn't a valid complaint against self-driving cars, since it can happen to humans even easier.

LinkPizza posted...
So, I'm scuttling my own argument.

Yes, I'm quite aware of that.

LinkPizza posted...
And as I said, AIs should be better at avoiding them.

And they are.

LinkPizza posted...
And because it hasn't happened yet, nobody can literally know if it'll be worse that with humans.

We can, because in the scenario you described it would be impossible for AI to behave worse than humans in the circumstances given.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
c.) Whether it's your main source of income or not, the point of a business is to make money.

No, it's not. Not always.

A business can be there to provide a service. Or to develop an idea. Or just because its owner wanted to do it as a hobby. There are plenty of reasons to run a business that don't have to do with profit.

If you were a business owner yourself, you might understand that.

LinkPizza posted...
To me, it still sounds like you had trouble running a business.

Why are you using past tense? I'm still running this business and still very much enjoying it.

And no, at no point have I had trouble with it. I'm more or less maxed out on the profit I can make at my current location and I'm uninterested in moving somewhere more profitable.

LinkPizza posted...
I made no wild assumptions.

You did, actually, by assuming that better equipment would improve my profits despite having absolutely no clue what my business entails.

LinkPizza posted...
And this doesn't help to prove you had a good business. Sounds like you were barely staying afloat.

Again, why the past tense? You're making it sound like I'm not still running this thing.

Which, I suppose, only further highlights that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm curious, do you frequently opine on subjects you have no knowledge of? Because you've done it several times in this topic.

LinkPizza posted...
It's not like I was only watching. She was teaching me.

Not very well from the sounds of things.

LinkPizza posted...
And for the junk self-checkout, I'm not constraining anything.

Sure you are.

Why does it matter that they come from a junkyard specifically? This was an artificial constraint you introduced solely because used car parts frequently show up in a junkyard, but used electronic parts never do. Hence why the conclusion is pointless.

That's why I countered with the electronics catalogue. That's similarly constraining the debate by picking a part source that is heavily skewed towards the conclusion I want to push. I did that to illustrate how ridiculous your assertion was.

If a hobbyist can get the parts it doesn't matter whether they're sourced from a junkyard, a catalogue, eBay, or a parts dealer - in the end, you can still wind up building a machine. That's the point you should be focusing on, not quibbling over whether they came from a junkyard or not.

LinkPizza posted...
Idk why you would assume anything different... You're just mad that you "lost the debate"...

If you consider heavily constraining the question so as to preclude all answers other than the one that fits your narrative... congrats?

I feel like that's pretty low-tier debating, but if you're declaring victory I guess you should take your wins where you can get them.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And it also won't be all free, as I've said multiple times before...

It will be, you'll understand that eventually.

LinkPizza posted...
Nobody owns the AI idea. People own the physical robots they are in, though. That's what I'm talking about. The robots are a physical thing. Like that Sawyer robot crap you posted. You can literally own one. That has the AI in it, right? And somebody can buy and own one, right? So yes. People can own the AI.

The AI is not the robot; those are two different components.

The AI is the intelligence; the robot is the physical shell. Physical shells are comparatively easy to build - most robotics hobbyists could build a shell for an AI for a very small cost. All someone needs to do is upload an AI programming module to the internet and people would be set. All it takes is one altruist (or, if we're honest, pirate).

LinkPizza posted...
And the AI mimicking the bands is the problem. All they do is mimic.

That is factually wrong.

They are no more (or less) mimics than we are, since we use a similar process to come up with our music.

LinkPizza posted...
If you like the fakes, good for you. I don't. And will avoid them.

Good luck with that. You've already admitted you couldn't tell the AI-produced music posted earlier in the topic from the real thing.

LinkPizza posted...
And while you say my interpretation is incorrect, I was just basing on what you said earlier

Your interpretation 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...
a.) That seems like bad business if you can't get enough customers. Normally, when people are making a business, they make a business that people need. Therefore, they would have plenty of customers.

I live where I live. I didn't choose to live here because I thought it would be a good business opportunity. This may surprise you, but people aren't always thinking about maximizing their profit.

Could I make more money elsewhere in a place that has more customers? Certainly. I don't really want to, though.

LinkPizza posted...
b.) Your profits margins shouldn't be that slim for a business. As the point of a business is usually to make money.

Usually, but not always. In my case, it isn't. I honestly don't care if I make a huge amount of money off this business. It's a side-gig for me, not something that puts food on the table. It gets me some extra cash each year, but it's not something that will decide whether I can pay the bills at the end of the month.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
Plus, you were the one that keeps acting like this stuff will happen soon because of how fast technology moves.

"This stuff" being what? We've been talking about a lot of different tech in this topic, from stuff already out today to stuff that won't happen for a very long time (fully automated future) and everything in between. To suggest I've put a uniform timeline on EVERYTHING discussed is simply factually wrong.

LinkPizza posted...
You can try to twist my words all you want, though... I'll still be right, and you'll still be wrong...

I don't need to twist your words - you do a good enough job of that yourself.

Bold claim on the "right" and "wrong", though, especially for someone who has already admitted multiple times that he doesn't know what he's talking about on various things we've been discussing.

LinkPizza posted...
Another reason I'm not a fan of AI made stuff is there is no feeling behind any of it.

"Feeling" is a nebulous term. It's not an actual thing - just something that you've emotionally projected onto a work.

LinkPizza posted...
Again, a simple typo (keep reading for context). But an easy enough one to figure out. It's like you're not good at reading and figuring out what people are trying to say.

Again, stop blaming me for your sloppy posting. It is not my fault that you keep making easily-avoidable errors in your posts.

Invest in a remedial writing course if you want to solve this issue.

LinkPizza posted...
You seem to have trouble reading context when it's in the same sentence, so...

You seem to have trouble understanding what context is.

Maybe don't knock someone else's reading when your own posts are so full of mangled grammar and misspelled words.

LinkPizza posted...
As for my friends, you still haven't given an answer. I asked, "Why would I not hang out with them and force myself to find other friends who I probably won't like." The answer is I wouldn't. I like the friends I meet at work.

So meet with them outside of work.

Bam, problem solved. I'm still not sure why you struggled with something that simple.

LinkPizza posted...
No work would probably mean lousy friends...

Well, that doesn't speak very highly of your social skills, but more to the point, are your friends just going to ditch you as soon as you stop working? Doesn't sound very friend-like to me.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And it's fine if the AI helps. As long as it doesn't replace them.

Long term, it most likely will, especially for commercial applications.

AI are simply better than we are at this stuff and evolve faster than we can.

LinkPizza posted...
"Except it's 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." Try to keep up...

Which is what humans do as well, as I've already pointed out several times.

Maybe don't use "try to keep up", when you're restating an argument I've already debunked a few dozen posts ago.

LinkPizza posted...
This is making me not want to quote more.

Well, you're not quoting now, so that's not really any great loss from my perspective.

LinkPizza posted...
Are you actually reading the post? Because I don't understand how you can literally quote the context of my sentence, and then ask for context...

If you say, "It's not a statement of fact" and don't actually say what "it" is, then no, you have provided zero context to that quote and have not made clear what you're talking about. You constantly shift topics on the fly, so what "the rest of the paragraph" says is not necessarily related to this one sentence, except in your head.

LinkPizza posted...
Who can actually say if they'll get better at making content? We can't say that for a fact.

Yes, we can, because AI - like all technology - always gets better.

This is like saying, "Who can actually say if computers will get any faster or more powerful?". Yes, in the strictest technical sense it's not a known fact until it actually happens, but everyone knows tech sophistication only goes one way.

LinkPizza posted...
something could stop it from ever being able to make games and stories better than smooshing other content together

And that something is what?

If you can't answer that question you're just hypothesizing, not actually making an educated assertion.

LinkPizza posted...
You're the one that keeps lying about how that stuff is already out now. You keep saying stuff like that's already here.

Everything I've said is already here *is* already here. Absolutely none of that is a lie. If you think it is, you've simply failed to understand what I've posted or are being deliberately obtuse.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
Just like a human might play differently depending on how their opponent plays, the AI plays different depending on how their opponent plays. It's pretty basic knowledge.

That you very clearly don't have because - and I cannot stress this enough - you have no idea how the game works.

Please just stop talking about Go. It's downright painful watching you pretend to understand a game you have no knowledge of. If you want to discuss chess, go ahead - I'm presuming you actually have some knowledge of the way that game works. But with each post on Go you're doing nothing but exposing your own ignorance more and more.

LinkPizza posted...
And again, read the rest of the post, and you'll get context. Why do you take one sentence, ask for context, and then pass over the next couple of sentences that give context?

Because if you can't be bothered to spend that bare minimum of effort to actually plainly state what you're talking about instead of vaguely alluding to it and expecting me to scroll back in the debate and figure out what the fuck you're responding to, then your point probably wasn't worth reading in the first place. Either way, I'm not going to waste my time trying to decipher it.

You want me to respond to your points despite the fact that you refuse to use quote boxes like a rational person? Then you can provide proper statements that make it immediately clear what you're talking about. Unless and until you do that, expect me to keep calling out when you make some vague, random statement that isn't connected to anything, because it's terrible writing that's a chore to read.

LinkPizza posted...
So, based on the context of the next sentence, and how I feel about AI (and what I said before), I context clues would most likely point to I don't think they'll be making a lot of new games.

So say that!

For fuck's sake, what's so difficult about this? You can clearly do this when you actually make the effort.

LinkPizza posted...
I feel they'll just take a bunch of games and smoosh them together...

Which is not how AI works, but I guess you think your feelings are more important than facts, so whatever...

LinkPizza posted...
Even when other developers use ides from other games, they don't just smoosh games together to make a new one.

And AI don't either.

LinkPizza posted...
It's usually inserted well, depending on the game and developers. Like taking an idea from a game and making it better.

Which is exactly what AI do, because they tend to use iterative processes, not "random smooshing", as you so eloquently put it.

LinkPizza posted...
I don't think the ones letting the AI help with be "hobbyist.

Please post this sentence in English.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And not everyone knows how to hunt, or has the equipment or skills to do so.

So learn. There are people who will teach you for free, if you are so inclined.

LinkPizza posted...
And basic economics seems to have gone over your head. What makes you think other farmers will sell cheaper. Or that people will be willing to buy from the others. Many places only source from the same places because they trust those places. Also, why would anyone else sell them cheaper. You do realize that farmers have to make a profit, as well, right?

Basic economics lesson #2 for you today - profit is revenue minus overhead cost.

If there is a substantial drop in overhead cost (like, for instance, from automating your work force), you can reduce your revenue as well and still earn the same profit per unit sold. Notably, if you can undercut your competitors, you will gain a greater profit overall by attracting their customers with lower prices. Notably, this is *why* we are seeing a lot of those price drops I alluded to above as industries digitize and automate.

LinkPizza posted...
Like everything that bought for the animal (like feed), and pay for vet bills, and other things like the butchering of the animal. Just because robots are working the farm doesn't mean all those bills go away.

It does if we have robot vets, robot feed harvesters, and robot butchers.

LinkPizza posted...
You seem to think having robots just means things are cheaper and free, but that's not how the world works.

In the short term no, but in the long term it absolutely is.

LinkPizza posted...
So, the food will still belong to the farmer, who sells them to be sold to us. They will always cost money.

Until we reach a fully automated point, at which point there won't be a human farmer to oversee the robots because one isn't needed. The robots can simply set up shop on whatever land is designated for them.

LinkPizza posted...
I don't remember what a string is. I wrote that after watching a short tutorial.

Then you're admitting you don't know how Go works and probably should not be opining on things you very clearly know absolutely nothing about.

I don't know if you realize how plainly your complete lack of knowledge of the game comes across in your posts. That's exactly what I was drawing out with those last few statements - an admission from you that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Move on to something else - you've lost this point.

LinkPizza posted...
You obviously know I'm right and you're mad that I understood that you can have different playstyles in Go.

No, I obviously know you're bullshitting because I actually understand how the game is played.

At this point, the best way I can describe you is you're like a blind man pointing at the ocean and saying, "That's red!" - you're plainly wrong, but explaining why when you won't even understand the explanation is honestly a waste of my 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!

LinkPizza posted...
-The Internet: Not all internet plans are that low. I live in a city where one company has a monopoly and charges a lot more for the basic internet plan.

If you live in a city, I 100% guarantee you several businesses offer complimentary wifi.

LinkPizza posted...
The biggest point to take away is that even if we aren't paying with money, they are still get money off of us. Or from other people.

Which doesn't make them not free, as described above.

LinkPizza posted...
I was saying how things would already be free if all it took was being automated.

No, you were denying that things got cheaper over time and claimed they got more expensive instead (which isn't how human progress works). I pointed out that digitization has given us a huge amount of free stuff, which it unarguably has.

LinkPizza posted...
And in the end, they are making money by selling you info.

So? This has nothing to do with what's being discussed.

LinkPizza posted...
So, I'll ask again. Did you bump your head? Or are you straight up lying by acting like all of this is free? Because this stuff isn't free. It all has a price. Most money or information. And then the information is sold for money... And free options are just free samples. But as I explained earlier, just because a store isn't giving out free samples, it doesn't mean the food is all free. Just a sample. Not to mention, you straight up took a few of my post out of context like a dirty little liar. And as I said earlier, we're talking about legally free. Not, "I stole it, so it's free." So, there's also that... So I actually didn't admit you were right. And the one thing I couldn't tell you about, I found out actually does have cost. You're too blind to see that taking post out of context and having only a sample of free stuff doesn't mean that stuff is all free... So, again, did you bump you head?

Did you? You asked the same thing twice in one paragraph, except with shoddy spelling the second time.

I've already explained all of this above. If you're not paying for something - and you're not, for any of the things mentioned - it's free. It's really not much more complicated than that.

If you don't understand what "free" means, you have much bigger problems than I care to help you solve.

LinkPizza posted...
I may have said I think I meant plant, but that's because I'm like 99.99% sure I did.

Where?

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...
Why you thought I meant plates, I'll never know...

Because it's literally what you said?

Please stop blaming me for your shoddy posting. If you say something dumb, that's on you. It's not my job to correct what you say and make your argument for you.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
For you to say stuff is free, it would need to be all.

No, it wouldn't.

Seriously, why would it? You claimed that no one would put their artistic creations online and make them available unless they were paid. You also claimed that automation and digitization don't make things cheaper and that "history" showed that things get more expensive over times. I proved both of those arguments wrong by pointing out that there is now a bevy of free material online that wasn't there 30 years ago. You denied that, so I gave you examples of a bunch of free stuff.

EVERYTHING does not need to be free for that argument to hold true. At this point, you're deliberately misconstruing my argument just to avoid the simple truth that you have been badly proven wrong on this point.

LinkPizza posted...
-Videos Games: I still see no proof against what I said.

That's odd, because I posted over 10,000 free games from a single site, and there are many more out there.

LinkPizza posted...
Not only that, but steam isn't the only platform. There's Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo.

All of which also have games available for free.

https://blog.playstation.com/2021/03/17/play-at-home-2021-update-10-free-games-to-download-this-spring/
https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/store/top-free/games/pc
https://www.nintendo.com/games/free-to-start-games/

LinkPizza posted...
They went from $60 to $70 for most games.

"New, Triple-A games" (i.e. the ones that just went from $60 to $70) are not most games. For every $70 retail game that gets pushed out, a hundred free/freemium games get released on mobile or PC or on random websites.

While the highest price you can pay is now more expensive, the average price of a new video game has never been cheaper. That's simple fact.

LinkPizza posted...
-Online Forum & Social Media: Again, they are selling your info, so not free.

Are you paying money? No? Then it's free. That's the literal definition of the word.

Saying paying with information makes it not free is like saying that a free sample in a store isn't free because you had to spend time to take it from the person offering it to you.

LinkPizza posted...
-Podcast: I didn't agree with you. You just quoted out of context again. My actual post said, "Podcast are free... If they're on a free service.

I'm aware of what you said; you still seem to be blind to the fact that this portion of it is an admission that I'm right. It was then and it still is now.

LinkPizza posted...
-Video Conferencing: I can't check because I don't use them. But I did ask Google and apparently, they have a plan that cost money from what I read...

Some stuff isn't free =/= nothing is free.

Please learn the difference.


---

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

LinkPizza posted...
They have many things which you need Youtube Red to watch. And some stuff you still need to buy or rent to watch. So, not free...

You keep making this bizarre assertion that if you can point out some things that aren't free that means that nothing is free.

You realize that doesn't make basic logical sense, right?

Again, I never said everything was free; just that there's a lot of free stuff out there.

LinkPizza posted...
just because someone else paid for my food doesn't mean it's free

It does, actually - it's free from your perspective because you paid no money for it.

Again, saying, "It's not free if someone paid for it!" is completely ridiculous, because someone pays for everything. If I give you a free sample of a product, well, I paid to make that product, so I guess it's not free, right?

Except... no one defines it that way. Something is free if it is given to you and you don't have to pay for it. You keep trying to twist yourself into logical pretzels to explain why a bevy of things you don't have to pay for on the internet aren't "really" free, but it simply doesn't work. Did you pay for them? No? Then they're free for you. Go enjoy them.

LinkPizza posted...
Email: It cost information.

It's kind of entertaining watching how far you have to stretch yourself to try desperately to avoid acknowledging the simple truth that these things are all free. Apparently "information" counts as money these days...

BTW, you can falsify information if you're that concerned about your G-mail account spying on you.

LinkPizza posted...
Information given away like that has probably helped many people to get scammed...

Pretty sure Microsoft hasn't scammed anyone using the information in your e-mail, bro.

LinkPizza posted...
-Depends on where you go for stories. Some are free.

Great, thanks for admitting I'm right!

LinkPizza posted...
And many of the ones that are might basically be stolen since it shouldn't be online for free.

If an author puts their own story online, for free, then yes, it should be online for free.

LinkPizza posted...
And again, it's not all of them

I never said all of them, nor was that a prerequisite of the point being made, so I have no idea why you're desperately trying to steer the conversation back here aside from the fact that you have no other defence beyond moving the goal posts.

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And it's not free, as the original poster had to buy it from somewhere.

It's far more common that the video creator *is* the person who made the song.

LinkPizza posted...
And youtube is on the internet, which cost money...

Already went over this above. If you're paying to access the internet (reminder: free wifi exists), that still doesn't make something you get online "not free" any more than a free sample you get in a store isn't "free" because you had to buy gas for your car to get there. If you're going into that (frankly ridiculous) extreme, nothing is free.

Please stop being pedantic and dodging the point. You're just deliberately refusing to acknowledge that the internet is loaded with free shit that wasn't around 30 years ago.

LinkPizza posted...
-Pictures: They cannot get you pictures on whatever subject you want. Like pictures of a specific person might not be available. Or pictures of something that doesn't exist might not be available. Also, you could be stealing. Many people watermark their work so that people can't use it without permission. Some are also supposed to be available only on certain sites with permission, but people will buy them and put them up for free for other people to use, even when they aren't actually supposed to. Which is a form of theft.

None of which disproves my point, which is that there are a tonne of free pictures on the internet that are just a Google search away.

All you've said here is, "Not every picture online is free", which is not even close to what I was saying. Are there free, completely legal pictures online? Yes? Lots of them? Then my statement is true. You can whine about how some people are stealing pictures and how your Aunt Miriam's picture isn't on Google, but that's not a response to anything I said. I never said everything online was free or even every picture; just that there's a tonne of free pictures out there and that's unarguably true.

LinkPizza posted...
And again, the internet isn't free...

I'm curious at this point, since you keep making this logical error - does the phrase, "There's free stuff on the internet" not imply that you already have access to the internet? Like... that does make sense to you, right? You understand the linguistic convention at play there?

If I say, "They're doing a free giveaway on the local radio station", you can't reasonably argue, "No they're not! It's not free! You had to buy the radio, didn't you?!".

I mean, I guess you could argue that, but literally no one would take you seriously if you did.

LinkPizza posted...
It needs to be free to fit your narrative, and it's not since the materials cost something.

Except... they don't. I can download a picture right now for free. Do you want me to give you instructions on how to do it?

LinkPizza posted...
And while not everyone needs hard copies of their photos, many like to have them.

Which is not a counterpoint to the statement, "There are free photos on the internet."

LinkPizza posted...
-Videos: No. They are paid for by the ads, so they aren't free.

Not all videos have ads. And even if they do, you're still not paying any money for them. They are free. You, the consumer, need pay not a thing for them. That is the definition of "free".

If you are concerned about ads, I can send you a video right now, for free. It doesn't have any ads, I promise, and it won't cost either of us any money for me to send it to you.


---

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

LinkPizza posted...
The whole point is that the roomba that's created by automation still cost money because you have to buy it.

Buy it from who? If robots are mining the materials and making the robot, there's no one to buy it from.

You still don't seem to understand what "fully automated future" entails, nor why it precludes the possibility of money still existing by definition.

LinkPizza posted...
And there's not more free shit. We get free samples of stuff. But there's not that much free shit.

Bullshit. 500 hours of video are uploaded to Youtube every minute, nearly all of which are available to view for free.

How many free songs could you get in 1985? How many free videos? How many free video games?

How many of those can you get now? Answer: so many that you literally couldn't watch/listen to/play them all in your entire life, even if you did nothing else between now and your death.

LinkPizza posted...
When I'm talking about free shit, I'm talking about physical free shit.

Why are you adding the "physical" qualifier? That was never what this tangent was about.

You've apparently forgotten, but this entire side-discussion started because you refused to acknowledge that sometimes people are willing to create and release things for free. At no point was it ever stipulated that these things must be physical; indeed, we were originally talking about things like video games or art, which are digital creations.

At this point, you're simply moving the goal posts to avoid acknowledging that you've lost this point by being cornered into trying to claim that there isn't actually free shit (while posting on a completely free web forum, I might add).

LinkPizza posted...
You said that with automation, then stuff robots make will be free. So how come all the physical shit robots make cost money.

I've said this dozens of times now - money is an expression of human labour, and as long as humans are involved in the process, money will still be involved.

I don't understand why you're still confused about this very basic concept. Are we in a fully automated future right now? No? Then money will still change hands, because humans are involved in the process. Why do you find that so difficult to understand? I've explained this to you numerous different times.

We pay money for the human parts of a process, not the automated parts. That's where the roomba discussion came in. If you have a maid that vacuums your house, you will have to pay her each time she comes over and vacuums because she is a human doing labour for you; if you have a roomba or other automated robot doing the job, you do not have to pay them every time they vacuum, because that is the automated portion of the process and you do not pay anyone for an automated process. Do you still have to spend money to buy the roomba in the first place? Or to charge it after it's finished? Yes, because those things are not automated right now and humans are involved in roomba manufacture and power generation.

I am still baffled as to why this is so difficult for you to understand. It really is a very simple concept.

LinkPizza posted...
Also, you seem to be assuming that the store will be selling items at half price

What store?

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...
Having robots doesn't mean everything in your store is cheaper. You don't price you merchandise based on your workers. You base it on the cost of the items you buy. You understand that's how shit it priced, right?

I'm going to teach you about something called "supply and demand", because apparently you haven't learned about this yet.

The greater the supply of an item and/or the lower the demand, the lower the price goes; the lower the supply of an item and/or the greater the demand, the higher the price goes. Businesses will automatically seek an equilibrium where supply and demand are in balance in order to maximize profit for each unit sold.

Let's say Store A and Store B both sell widgets. Both of them decide to automate, which winds up halving their overhead. Store A decides it's going to pocket the difference in profit; Store B, realizing the opportunity, decides to halve its prices and maintain the same profit per unit sold. Since Store B is now selling for much lower than Store A, they have now create, in essence, a supply glut. Store A must now lower their prices or else lose all of their business to Store B, which is selling the same product for a fraction of the cost.

I know this seems complicated, but I can assure you it isn't.

LinkPizza posted...
-Music: Youtube have a bunch of music put up by other people who probably should put it up.

What?

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And I literally said, "I'm going to be using future tense since they aren't common and in every store, so they are still a future tech as of right now." And they aren't common or in a bunch of stores. That's why I'm still calling it future tech.

Then all you've proven is that you don't know what future tech is. Allow me to educate you.

Future tech is technology that isn't available yet and/or hasn't been created yet and is still theoretical or conceptual in nature. It is not, as you're misattributing here, technology that is available but not widespread. If the technology is available for commercial purchase, it is not, by definition, future tech.

I would think "Technology that exists in the present is, by basic English knowledge, not future tech" would be an unneeded statement, but apparently I was wrong...

LinkPizza posted...
And it seems like it can barely do anything? That's why I'm asking what it can do.

I already answered you - whatever you want to teach it to do.

LinkPizza posted...
Can it do stuff other than pick up small items and vacuum?

Yes - it can do whatever you want to teach it to do.

Why are you asking the same question multiple times when it has already been answered?

LinkPizza posted...
The guy bumped a table. But instead of it taking a picture and repositioning itself, it got sad and had to wait for the guys to make it do that. Which seems less autonomous, tbh.

Because it has not learned that function.

If you want to teach it to do that, you can do so.

LinkPizza posted...
Which means I was right when I said it was future tech as it still doesn't actually work the way it's supposed to...

It does work the way it's supposed to.

The fact that it is still relatively primitive does not mean it is not working as intended. Saying, "It's early days" does not mean that the technology isn't functioning correctly, it means the current functionality of the tech is low and it will be a while before this particular technology sees widespread use, as it still needs to be developed and improved further.

What you're saying is like claiming that space travel is future tech because it isn't widespread yet, despite the fact that we've been travelling to and from space for almost a century now.

LinkPizza posted...
I was calling it future tech because it's not common or anything.

In other words you were demonstrating that you don't know what "future tech" means and using an incorrect definition of the term. Yes, we noticed.

LinkPizza posted...
As for the roombas, I'm not the one mixing up arguments. You are.

And that's the fifth "No, u!" argument of the post. You have a bad habit of projection, did you know that? There's better approaches to arguing than, "I am rubber, you are glue".

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
And then traffic would slow down drastically due to the insane amount of cars on the road.

Switching to "the Uber model" leads to fewer cars on the road, not more, which is beneficial from pretty much every angle.

LinkPizza posted...
The parking lot you pay for seems to be more of a parking area rather than a personal garage or driveway.

And what does that distinction change about the point?

LinkPizza posted...
And if people would rather have more house or yard, they could modify the house to fit those needs. Or buy it like that or whatever...

Assuming they can get by without a garage/driveway.

Most cannot.

LinkPizza posted...
But based on this, you probably wouldn't for the majority who are fine owning a car and would rather not pay a ton for having to basically rent a car (or multiple cars) daily. Or having to keep a car all day, which would probably cost extra. Makes more sense to just own a car.

Not if renting is cheaper.

The advantage to the rental model is you only pay for the car when you are using it; when you own a car, you pay for it always, whether it is being driven or just sitting around doing nothing.

LinkPizza posted...
So the people who can't own a car would be better off using public transport, which actually can be pretty cheap in certain areas.

Assuming you live near a transit stop. And also that your destination is near a transit stop. And that the route between them is relatively direct.

Transit is cheap, but inefficient, unless you happen to be lucky enough to be a straight shot from your destination via a transit line. For most people, this is not the case. A rent-a-self-driving-car system allows the car to pick you up wherever, drive you wherever, all for a reasonable rate.

LinkPizza posted...
And if they aren't because the road's flooded with them, then you'll still be waiting for a while because of nearly stand still traffic. You may even be waiting longer...

Any standstill traffic that affects a car is going to affect a bus even worse (since the bus isn't going direct to a single destination).

You're not helping your case here.

LinkPizza posted...
And that's a reply to post #167 quote 4, since you're proven you don't understand context clues or remember anything you post...

See? You can do it if you try! Congratulations on working out a basic function of conversation!

---

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

LinkPizza posted...
Which could also cause trouble if some teens use it to go somewhere to have sex.

That sounds like something the car rental company would probably want to know about for sanitary reasons, so you're really not helping your case here by saying that cameras shouldn't be in the car to see it.

LinkPizza posted...
And speaking of doing nasty things in the vehicles, those vehicles will probably be so gross if people were actually constantly using them.

So if they're dirty, send it in for cleaning (something the AI can do by itself) and charge the bill to whoever dirtied it. Problem solved.

LinkPizza posted...
Basically, this idea is a dumb one with way too many flaws.

Weird how some pretty smart people have made a successful business model with it then.

You act like this is an idea that hasn't already been implemented. The only thing that separates this from current Car Share programs is the self-driving aspect of it.

LinkPizza posted...
But that could also happen in a self-driving service if the next person in the car steals it when they get in.

Something that would be picked up by the car's cameras. You would also have a record of who got in the car (since they would need to identify themselves to order the car), making it pretty easy to track down the culprit.

LinkPizza posted...
Maybe because they aren't thinking about making a fully autonomous taxi service yet like the one you described.

Uber's entire business model is predicated on that. They literally have yet to turn a profit because their entire business is not designed to work with human drivers and is unprofitable when they're in the picture. They're basically laying the ground work and banking on self-driving cars taking over the leg work so that the money flows to them instead of the drivers.

There's a reason why they're one of the biggest investors in self-driving cars despite not being a big tech firm.

LinkPizza posted...
And I'm not actually worried about the babies.

You're worried about leaving a phone behind but not about a kid dying?

Says a lot, man.

LinkPizza posted...
I'm pretty sure this won't happen for probably another 50 years, at the earliest.

Again, Uber is banking on this happening within the next 10 years. Pretty sure I trust their opinion on it more than yours.

---

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!