LogFAQs > #953430910

LinkPizza posted...

Most chefs at normal restaurants follow a restaurants recipe. Thats true. But those chefs arent the one normally using secret ingredients, or making special foods or whatever.

So you're saying instead of 100% of chefs being automated, only 95% are at risk?

OK. I don't think that really changes the argument as much as you seem to think.

LinkPizza posted...

Humans can also have personal chefs somewhere else, too.

The really rich ones, sure. For 99% of the population, that isn't a realistic option.

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, I dont see many people carrying a robot with them everywhere they travel

They don't have to.

Again, you're thinking about this way too small-scale. A "robot" isn't just a physical device, it's a network. If you tell Starbucksbot exactly how you like your coffee and fine-tune it to your exact tastes, you don't have one robot who knows how to make you the perfect drink, you have millions. Every Starbucksbot in the world now knows your personal taste, meaning that when you go on vacation you'll be able to have your coffee made exactly as you like it, even though you might be on a totally different continent.

LinkPizza posted...

By better, I do mean faster. But also better in most cases, as well (like bagging, which we probably still be at checkout if getting many groceries) And I dont see it getting any faster in a couple of years.

Again, I already explained this. This is where quoting what you're responding to helps, because you might have noticed the explanation inherent in what I said.

"Better" need not be faster; in fact "better" can be slower. A system that is half as fast as a human but ten times cheaper is still "better" in the owner's eyes.

LinkPizza posted...

You said it wasnt cost effective for stores, even though I said it was. So which is it? Cost effective or not? And if its cost effective, why are we still waiting on stores to have more than 4 when many of the bigger stores have like 10 empty lanes all the time?

You keep bringing up points I've already explained to you.

Owning a washing machine is more cost effective than going to a laundromat by far; yet there are still lots of people who use laundromats, for a variety of reasons. Does that mean washing machines aren't actually cost effective in the long run? No, it just means there's more metrics that businesses consider when upgrading their tech.

LinkPizza posted...

Ive literally asked most people I know in real life that I speak with on at least a weekly basis about this.

Your personal anecdotes are not statistically valid, nor are they all that relevant to the debate.

LinkPizza posted...

I think you need to catch up with the way the world works. The people buying and helping to fund automation are the people with money. And that money gives them power. They arent going to make anything free.

You might want to brush up on your history if you haven't spotted the pattern in tech advances.

Even if, say, Amazon wanted to continuously charge money for the use of their robots, "AI" is not a physical property, it's a design idea. And you cannot ban - or even really control - an idea. If Amazon doesn't make things as cheap as they can, which will effectively be free, one of their competitors will undercut them. Eventually, via that process, it will get cheap enough that hobbyists put out free versions (and long before that tech pirates will be doing the same). We've seen this with pretty much every technology in the world. Any music, any program, almost anything that can be digitized can be found online today, often completely for free as long as you're willing to skirt the rules. Why do you think AI will be in any way differently.

---

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