LogFAQs > #953716427

LinkPizza posted...

You say that its cost effective to get the new machines that are 10x cheaper, but that Wal-Mart and Target (who can definitely afford it) arent getting more because they cant afford it?

Where did I say that Wal-Mart and Target specifically can't afford automated checkouts?

LinkPizza posted...

If it would save them money in the long run, theyd do it. They arent for a reason. I do have a few theories on why, but this is what Im saying. Youre saying they would be 10x cheaper. So, the stores that can afford should get them. Especially since bigger stores usually look for the most money, even over time. At the same time, youre saying my they arent, but have no real reason other than they cant afford them.

You're deliberately misconstruing my arguments at this point. This is where actually quoting what you're responding to would help you, because it would highlight that you're getting two different points confused.

I said - in response to a different tangent you went off on - that small stores cannot afford automated checkouts because the costs are front-loaded. Wal-Mart and Target are not small stores. That's not a difficult point to understand.

You'll also note that every Wal-Mart and Target you go in today has automated checkout lanes. They do keep some human cashiers on hand - and I already explained the reason why, if you actually go back and read my points on the subject - but not nearly as many as they once did.

LinkPizza posted...

And they are not personal anecdotes. Personal anecdote would be me telling a story that I think would relate to everyone.

A personal anecdote is you sharing your experience. That's it.

And that's exactly what you did, whether you want to admit it or not. Even if you talked to everyone you know, that is not statistically significant (nevermind talking about sampling bias), nor relevant to the debate.

If you don't see the problem with what you did, I'll counter by saying I asked everyone I know and everyone in the city I live in and they all agree with me on every one of my points. Now do you think that's a valid way for me to prove my point?

LinkPizza posted...

That's how it's going to work since that's how it always has worked...

This is basically your argument in a nutshell and it proves how shortsighted it is.

It's confirmation bias incarnate - the idea that just because something has always held true, it will continue to hold true in the future, despite the fact that truths underpinning it are changing. 500 years ago, someone would tell you that the only way you could ever lead a country is by being born into the royal family or leading a violent overthrow of the king. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history. 150 years ago, people would tell you that horses were one of a country's most important asset because of their critical importance to agriculture, transportation, and warfare. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history. 70 years ago, people - including some computer experts - would tell you that there was no reason why anyone would ever need to own a personal computer. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history.

Things change. Always. Even big things change. Suggesting that "well, money has always been around, so money always will be around" is showing wilful blindness to the possibility of change when the fundamental rules of commerce break down.

LinkPizza posted...

And literally everyone knows it. Except for some people on this site like you...

-Says "literally everyone knows it"
-Immediately gives example of people who correctly identify it as false.

Notably, even if this is true you are once again engaging in a logical fallacy - specifically the Alleged Certainty fallacy. Even if you were correct and everyone did believe your point was true (they don't), that wouldn't make it any more correct (because it isn't).

If everyone believed that lemons were purple, that wouldn't suddenly make any of them correct.

LinkPizza posted...

Because there's no way people just start giving stuff away for free just because their robots made it for them. That's not how it's ever worked.

That's literally how it works right now. As an example, you can go on Youtube and listen to a song written by a robot for free. You can download 3D models that people have made - with the assistance of robots - for free. The internet has widely expanded the availability of "free" stuff, to the point where it is already possible to live a fulfilling and complete life while expending zero dollars beyond what is needed to pay for your food and lodgings.

And you think robots, AI, and automation aren't going to expand that trend even further? That goes against every economic trend on the subject we've seen in the last 30 years.

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is you think people will make things cheap and undercut a lot. Problem is, they still need to make money.

To do what?

If the robots are mining all the materials, doing all the fabrication, transporting all the goods, and handling any repairs/disposal, who do you need to pay? There are no humans involved in that process that require compensation.

---

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!