LogFAQs > #952667014

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Controversial Opinion #4: Automation
darkknight109 04/10/21 1:35:34 AM #127:	LinkPizza posted... And what two points am I jumping between Whether you want to talk about a fully automated future or a partially-automated future, because those are two very different topics. For instance, money won't (and can't) exist in a fully automated future, but it absolutely can and will in a partially-automated future. You can't just randomly flip between them on one point. LinkPizza posted... They actually do. The same program for driving a self-driving car isnt the same for self-checkout. And neither are the same for diagnosing patients. And being built for something isnt just the program, but the actual machine itself. Most of which can be solved by an AI capable of designing and building other AI. It's also worth noting that AI can also network more effectively than humans ever will. What one AI learns it can pass on to all the rest. LinkPizza posted... As for the bus seats, we still dont have anything like that, though. And thats still hypothetically moving someone to the spot and strapping them in. But nothing like that is out there yet. Honestly, for a robot that's a pretty simple task. I can guarantee you there are robots fully capable of doing that job in existence today. They're nowhere near cost-efficient at the moment, which is why you're not seeing them used, but, as mentioned, costs come down pretty quickly... LinkPizza posted... Also, before we have robots performing multiple tasks, we should probably start at one. We already did - they've been building cars for nearly four decades now and put factory workers out of business by being more cost-effective than them. We passed single-use robots a long, long, LOOONG time ago now. That is positively ancient tech in this day and age. Even multi-task robots are pretty old. Learning robots are the new kid on the block. LinkPizza posted... Theres also the whole watching the automations thing. I feel people would eventually have to. Automations will eventually degrade over time. And even if you have automation watch automation for degrading, those could also degrade. Eventually, you have a never ending line of automation watching automation, and possibly all degrading or whatever You're thinking way too linearly. Automaton A doesn't just watch Automaton B for signs of degradation; Automaton B also watches Automaton A. Then Automaton C comes along to watch both of them and both of them watch Automaton C. And when one of them starts to degrade, it gets sent for repairs and then gets back to work. Which is more or less how humans work. We continually evaluate ourselves for signs of degradation, but for those that we cannot perceive (like degradation of the mind), others will chime in when they notice errors happening in our functions. LinkPizza posted... The thing is, we already have one in place: money Why get rid of the bartering system we already have to make another. Because money exists because of human labour. We've been over this. In a fully automated future, how are you going to obtain money in the first place? You can't - there will be no jobs for you to do, because a robot is already doing those jobs and will be doing it better than you ever could. Even if you want to work, no one will hire you. They would have no reason to. So without money, how do you survive? Well, again, robots are doing all the work and robots don't need to be paid, so they will harvest food for you, make clothes for you, provide heat, and electricity, and entertainment goods, and, well, pretty much anything else you could ask for. So if you have no way to earn money and, therefore, no way to spend it, money effectively doesn't exist for you. Now realize that everyone else is in the same boat. Suddenly, even if physical money does exist, it becomes completely meaningless because commerce doesn't exist anymore. Land and real estate is one of the only things that machines can't make more of, so yeah, we're going to need a way to sort that out... but it won't be via money because, again, you have no way to make money. LinkPizza posted... They probably got data from more than Grandmasters, though. No, actually - modern chess-bots are self-taught. They only need to know the rules. They, in essence, make a copy of themselves and start playing games against it and record what does and doesn't work in order to try and optimize moves. That's basically what General Adversarial Networks are. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:952667014] in Controvers... [t:79384298]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>And what two points am I jumping between</quote>Whether you want to talk about a fully automated future or a partially-automated future, because those are two very different topics. For instance, money won't (and can't) exist in a fully automated future, but it absolutely can and will in a partially-automated future. You can't just randomly flip between them on one point. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>They actually do. The same program for driving a self-driving car isnt the same for self-checkout. And neither are the same for diagnosing patients. And being built for something isnt just the program, but the actual machine itself.</quote>Most of which can be solved by an AI capable of designing and building other AI. It's also worth noting that AI can also network more effectively than humans ever will. What one AI learns it can pass on to all the rest. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>As for the bus seats, we still dont have anything like that, though. And thats still hypothetically moving someone to the spot and strapping them in. But nothing like that is out there yet.</quote>Honestly, for a robot that's a pretty simple task. I can guarantee you there are robots fully capable of doing that job in existence today. They're nowhere near cost-efficient at the moment, which is why you're not seeing them used, but, as mentioned, costs come down pretty quickly... LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Also, before we have robots performing multiple tasks, we should probably start at one.</quote>We already did - they've been building cars for nearly four decades now and put factory workers out of business by being more cost-effective than them. We passed single-use robots a long, long, LOOONG time ago now. That is positively ancient tech in this day and age. Even multi-task robots are pretty old. Learning robots are the new kid on the block. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Theres also the whole watching the automations thing. I feel people would eventually have to. Automations will eventually degrade over time. And even if you have automation watch automation for degrading, those could also degrade. Eventually, you have a never ending line of automation watching automation, and possibly all degrading or whatever</quote>You're thinking way too linearly. Automaton A doesn't just watch Automaton B for signs of degradation; Automaton B also watches Automaton A. Then Automaton C comes along to watch both of them and both of them watch Automaton C. And when one of them starts to degrade, it gets sent for repairs and then gets back to work. Which is more or less how humans work. We continually evaluate ourselves for signs of degradation, but for those that we cannot perceive (like degradation of the mind), others will chime in when they notice errors happening in our functions. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>The thing is, we already have one in place: money Why get rid of the bartering system we already have to make another.</quote>Because money exists because of human labour. We've been over this. In a fully automated future, how are you going to obtain money in the first place? You can't - there will be no jobs for you to do, because a robot is already doing those jobs and will be doing it better than you ever could. Even if you want to work, no one will hire you. They would have no reason to. So without money, how do you survive? Well, again, robots are doing all the work and robots don't need to be paid, so they will harvest food for you, make clothes for you, provide heat, and electricity, and entertainment goods, and, well, pretty much anything else you could ask for. So if you have no way to earn money and, therefore, no way to spend it, money effectively doesn't exist for you. Now realize that everyone else is in the same boat. Suddenly, even if physical money does exist, it becomes completely meaningless because commerce doesn't exist anymore. Land and real estate is one of the only things that machines can't make more of, so yeah, we're going to need a way to sort that out... but it won't be via money because, again, you have no way to make money. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>They probably got data from more than Grandmasters, though.</quote>No, actually - modern chess-bots are self-taught. They only need to know the rules. They, in essence, make a copy of themselves and start playing games against it and record what does and doesn't work in order to try and optimize moves. That's basically what General Adversarial Networks are. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1