LogFAQs > #954419730

As I've said every time you've asked for context, keep reading and you will see it. The whole thing said, "You're using the music example. But I'm talking about physical things. Like food, cars, electronics, etc... Yeah. Youtube is free (for us, though it's still getting paid, which I will talk about later). But machines make all sorts of stuff. Machines make the cars, but will still pay a ton for them. Machines put roombas together, and they still cost like $800 dollars. And honestly, the music they make is probably closer indie developers making a game for free that's good to get noticed, so they can make games later to sell." So, obviously, the music example is the one you put forward. It's as easy as knowing what you yourself said. You said, "As an example, you can go on Youtube and listen to a song written by a robot for free" as a counterpoint when I said robots would be giving stuff away for free. But I said I was talking about the physical things. Which would be things I mentioned (cars and roombas). Which you literallt talk about in your next post. So, getting context would be as easy as keep reading. Because I mentioned both the music and physical items in the same paragraph... And even then, you still didn't say anything meaningful Even if they aren't free, you would think we'd get some of the savings. I mean, roombas were invented in 2002. The factories have probably become more automated than they were before. Yet Roombas still cost $800. Which is way up from their price in 2002, which was only $200. So, not only did automation not make them cheaper, but they got more expensive... And the extra $600 roombas today aren't even that much better the original, apparently. They did a bunch of tests to see how the original held up to the new ones. And it held up surprisingly well... But it's weird that with their factories being more automated that the average price quadrupled. Things like this is the reason that I can't see any reason to believe that automation will make any cheaper, let alone free... Even though humans aren't completely removed, many still were. Meaning that at the very least, as discount would be nice. But they don't care about customers. They care about profit...

As for your Articles about whether people like robots or not, the first one is talking about a robotic dog. Which seems closer to the kid toys. Not to mention, they're not comparing it to robots, but to different types of "dolls", as they call them... But it's mostly shows that people love toys. And the third one says for that for better or for worse, it will change how we interact with each other. And it wasn't that interacting with the robot made them better. But interacting with mistake riddled ones. Which isn't what we want. Earlier, I mentioned how robot wouldn't be perfect, and said it was ok for things we there was do-overs (art, video games, food, etc.)... But there are things I can't have my AI fucking up. Like for example, when driving. One mistake on their part could cost me my life. If I am forced to put my life in the hands of a machine, it better be perfect. If not, let me drive... But in the end, it wasn't so much about the robot themselves, but how the robot interacted. Replace that robot with a human they made the same mistakes, and they probably would have done just as well... Even in the selfish test, it was because of how the robot acted rather than it being an actual robot. Though, they call it concerning how the robot could cause us to act to each other. So, a few bad robots could end up ruining a bunch of people... It even said that, "Children who grow up relating to AI in lieu of people might not acquire 'the equipment for empathic connection.'" They say AI could also negatively affect adults when it comes to sex... It also mentioned how driverless cars could contribute to their atrophy., and could increase a human's likelihood of accidents. Not only that, but it made mention of the three rules. Which don't really seem to matter since there's no guarantee robots will adhere to them. We already have humans who don't. so... Either way, the third article does more harm than good, and proves my point better that we shouldn't have them... And for the second article just showed how you could trick humans into liking a robot. They went to the old lady thinking she was a person instead of a robot. Which is even creepier if they can blend in so well, IMO... And that's before any AI... They also seem to be able to trick humans into not turning them off or to show authority to make them listen to them. Also, there is evidence to suggest that humans experience more negative feelings towards a robot trying to persuade them when it over-expressed common social cues, like facial expressions, head movements, and affective speech. Probably because they feel the robot is trying to trick them with a fake personality... I save that one for last, thinking it would be the only one that showed anything about humans liking robots because of the title. But that one turned out to be a bust, as well...
---

Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.