LogFAQs > #953173591

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 04/24/21 8:25:13 AM #142:	LinkPizza posted... But I think going 5 over or something on an empty highway somewhere is fine as long as you can control the vehicle So humans can tell them to do so. Again, this is entirely a human decision, not a limitation of the AI. You can get the AI to drive double the speed limit, so long as you can convince the humans in charge of law enforcement that it's a good idea to do so... LinkPizza posted... The problem is you arent paying the robot. You are paying the people who own them. The robot is the tool in this case, and you are using it from somewhere else. Do you cut your local hardware store a cheque every time you use your lawn mower? If not, why do you think robots would be any different? LinkPizza posted... The other problem is the people who own the robot need to be able to fix the robot. And that requires resources. And those resources cost money. Those resources cost money because they require human labour to extract and process. Automate that and those resources can be gathered and processed (or, more likely, recycled and reprocessed) for free. LinkPizza posted... And you do realize that people already have to buy the Vroomba you speak of. They arent free That would be because humans make them right now, out of resources extracted by humans and shipped by humans to factories built by humans. Every human in that supply chain can, at least in theory, be replaced by a robot. Do that and your costs become zero. Again, you are being deliberately disingenuous on this point. I have already explained this to you numerous times. LinkPizza posted... People would pay for it (the money goes to the store who owned it before you, not the machine), and the proof is that they literally already do Because we're not in the fully automated future we're talking about here, genius. Once again, you're jumping back and forth between the mostly- or fully-automated future and the non-automated present. LinkPizza posted... Its like if you bought a robot that cooks, you would still need the cooking materials so it can cook it. It cant just make food appear. You need to pay for those. And if that food is cultivated by a robot from seed to dinner plate? LinkPizza posted... So, its still taught the basics, which I believe I mentioned. And while there are millions of moves in chess, they are finite. Based on how they played before (if they have that data), and how they are currently playing, they can usually try to predict their opponents moves, which is what real people also do. They even use data to try to trick opponents. And they learn from their opponents they are playing against. Even if its during that match. And while the number is high (and may start of going higher at first), it eventually gets lower as the game is played more. And the computer can think of millions of ways to play constantly at the same time. Even if there are high, they still are limited in the moves that can be made. As certain moves are made, others become possible or impossible. And the computer can get rid of the impossible moves and focus on only the possible ones. And only the good possible ones. Like if it knows a certain move would be bad with no pay off, that move is now not a move it would make. Basically, even if its a lot of moves, they become more limited as time goes on. And only certain moves would make sense, to a computer or human And I may not know about Go, but I dont underestimate the computers ability to predict moves. It may not be perfect because I hear some people try to trick it. But its probably pretty good when playing against people who are playing the way they normally play Like they may know if someone is more aggressive or passive with their moves or whatever What point are you even trying to make with all this? You don't even seem to be arguing anything about this tangent anymore, just talking in incredibly abstract terms about a game you don't even know how to play. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:953173591] in Controvers... [t:79384298]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>But I think going 5 over or something on an empty highway somewhere is fine as long as you can control the vehicle</quote>So humans can tell them to do so. Again, this is entirely a human decision, not a limitation of the AI. You can get the AI to drive double the speed limit, so long as you can convince the humans in charge of law enforcement that it's a good idea to do so... LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>The problem is you arent paying the robot. You are paying the people who own them. The robot is the tool in this case, and you are using it from somewhere else.</quote>Do you cut your local hardware store a cheque every time you use your lawn mower? If not, why do you think robots would be any different? LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>The other problem is the people who own the robot need to be able to fix the robot. And that requires resources. And those resources cost money.</quote>Those resources cost money because they require human labour to extract and process. Automate that and those resources can be gathered and processed (or, more likely, recycled and reprocessed) for free. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>And you do realize that people already have to buy the Vroomba you speak of. They arent free</quote>That would be because humans make them right now, out of resources extracted by humans and shipped by humans to factories built by humans. Every human in that supply chain can, at least in theory, be replaced by a robot. Do that and your costs become zero. Again, you are being deliberately disingenuous on this point. I have already explained this to you numerous times. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>People would pay for it (the money goes to the store who owned it before you, not the machine), and the proof is that they literally already do</quote>Because we're not in the fully automated future we're talking about here, genius. Once again, you're jumping back and forth between the mostly- or fully-automated future and the non-automated present. LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>Its like if you bought a robot that cooks, you would still need the cooking materials so it can cook it. It cant just make food appear. You need to pay for those.</quote>And if that food is cultivated by a robot from seed to dinner plate? LinkPizza posted... </cite> <quote>So, its still taught the basics, which I believe I mentioned. And while there are millions of moves in chess, they are finite. Based on how they played before (if they have that data), and how they are currently playing, they can usually try to predict their opponents moves, which is what real people also do. They even use data to try to trick opponents. And they learn from their opponents they are playing against. Even if its during that match. And while the number is high (and may start of going higher at first), it eventually gets lower as the game is played more. And the computer can think of millions of ways to play constantly at the same time. Even if there are high, they still are limited in the moves that can be made. As certain moves are made, others become possible or impossible. And the computer can get rid of the impossible moves and focus on only the possible ones. And only the good possible ones. Like if it knows a certain move would be bad with no pay off, that move is now not a move it would make. Basically, even if its a lot of moves, they become more limited as time goes on. And only certain moves would make sense, to a computer or human And I may not know about Go, but I dont underestimate the computers ability to predict moves. It may not be perfect because I hear some people try to trick it. But its probably pretty good when playing against people who are playing the way they normally play Like they may know if someone is more aggressive or passive with their moves or whatever</quote>What point are you even trying to make with all this? You don't even seem to be arguing anything about this tangent anymore, just talking in incredibly abstract terms about a game you don't even know how to play. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1