LogFAQs > #954206565

LinkPizza posted...
Me saying, "I've literally asked most people I know in real life that I speak with on at least a weekly basis about this. Nobody except for people on this board think everything will be free. The closest was a friend that said what you said which was, "Money is a concept of human labor."" isn't a personal anecdote.

You literally just told a story in that paragraph.

It's a personal anecdote, dude. Accept it.

LinkPizza posted...
It's closer to the results of a sample group of study.

One filled with biases, sampling errors, and insufficient sample size for statistical significance such that it would never be accepted as valid in any serious discussion, if indeed it actually happened at all.

But sure, call it that if it makes you feel better.

LinkPizza posted...
And last part was just telling you what one person actually said. And he honestly disagrees with nearly everything else you said...

Cool. All my friends agree with everything I say too.

Are we done with this ridiculous tangent? I don't care whether or not your friends agree with you or not - they're not here, I'm not talking with them, and even if all of them actually did disagree with everything I said, that has nothing to do with whether or not I'm right.

LinkPizza posted...
For context, people already use machines to make a bunch of stuff. And that stuff still cost money.

Yes, because it is currently impossible to completely remove humans from that process. There are costs in that process because human labour is still involved, whether that's in designing the machines or mining the materials or performing maintenance and planning, humans still do plenty of tasks in even the most automated of processes.

Costs and money will continue to exist for as long as humans are involved, however tangentially, in a process. Only when we reach a state where robots can do absolutely everything in a process will money cease to exist in a meaningful fashion.

LinkPizza posted...
You're the one using confirmation bias, if anything. You're just assuming you're right when history actually shows us you're wrong.

Past events are not reliable predictors of future changes, not on the subject of something like technology. To demonstrate:

If we were having this conversation in 1900, you would be saying that cars will never be widespread and we will continue to ride horses, because in 10,000 years of human history we've always rode horses and never had widespread cars.

If we were having this conversation in 1950, you would be saying that personal computers will never be widespread, because in 10,000 years of human history we've never had that level of technology in our homes for personal use.

If we were having this conversation in 1980, you would be saying that cell phones will never be widespread, because in 10,000 years of history we've always used traditional forms of communication and never had cell phones.

Automation is a game changer. Like cars or smart phones or computers or the internet. You cannot use "history" to justify your views when talking about a new technological intervention.

LinkPizza posted...
If you were right, then all those factories when things are built by machines would be giving us stuff for free. But they aren't.

There are no completely automated factories.

Also, you're completely misconstruing my argument, but that doesn't really surprise me at this point.

LinkPizza posted...
But if you think things will change, where are they getting free material. Because the person mining/making the material with robots will charge for it since he needs that money to survive and maintain his robots. The parts aren't free. And will never be. The problem is there's not way to end money. And robots themselves will cost money to buy and maintain. So, people will still need money to live...

Robots and resources will continue to cost money for precisely as long as humans are involved in their manufacture/maintenance/extraction. Is there a human mine supervisor? He needs to be paid, money still exists. Is there a technician responsible for troubleshooting the robots? He needs to be paid, money still exists.

In a fully automated future, where the robots can mine things unsupervised, build themselves unsupervised, maintain themselves unsupervised, who is getting paid? Answer: no one, there are no humans involved in the process *to* pay and, therefore, no money necessary to pay them.

I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding this. It's really not a difficult concept, but you keep messing up the particulars.

---

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!