LogFAQs > #952514090

LinkPizza posted...

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

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

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

LinkPizza posted...

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

No, actually, they don't.

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

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

LinkPizza posted...

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

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

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

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

LinkPizza posted...

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

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

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

LinkPizza posted...

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

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

LinkPizza posted...

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

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

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

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

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

LinkPizza posted...

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

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

---

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