LogFAQs > #954553512

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 06/02/21 5:59:38 AM #287:	LinkPizza posted... And if they do, anything the robots make, find, mine, or whatever belongs to whoever owns or is renting them. So, things still cost money because it's not like the robots own it. Whoever owns them owns it. And they will sell for a profit. You're thinking too small. What if everyone owns these robots? As in, it's not owned by one person or business but everyone has their own personal all-purpose robot that can fill whatever function is needed? Cook a steak? Build a desk? Give Fluffy a checkup? All doable using the same bot. It's not as far-fetched as you'd think. All you need is one bot built by an altruist that can build other bots like itself. Even if the corporate interests don't want it to happen, there just needs to be one self-replicating robot to collapse the entire system. LinkPizza posted... Maybe it's be the government or state if not the farmer... But someone always owns something. And you can't assume that they will give their property away for free... If it's the government (and it is - all subsurface rights belong to the government) they can and will absolutely give things away for free, because if they're the only ones with commercial power than money effectively becomes meaningless. Which, y'know, is what I've been saying for a while. LinkPizza posted... I watched a short tutorial on Go, so I know how it works. Watching a short tutorial on Go (that you've already admitted you don't remember the details of) and claiming you know how it works is a bit like me watching a video tutorial on sutures and claiming I'm now a surgeon. LinkPizza posted... And just like any game, you can play defensively, passively, aggressively, etc. Just like "any game", you say? Tell me, how do you play Go Fish defensively? What's your passive strategy for Solitaire? Do you prefer an offensive or defensive game when you're playing Snakes and Ladders? Please stop trying to talk about a game you clearly have no understanding of. Whatever tutorial you watched, it wasn't enough for you to meaningfully participate in this conversation. LinkPizza posted... People play differently, and the robot can predict millions of moves per second. Which isn't meaningful when there are literally more possible game combinations than there are atoms in the observable universe. LinkPizza posted... Even without playing a game, if it knows how to play, it can probably still predict movements based on how they are starting to play. "Probably" meaning you don't actually know. Please, this is really getting sad at this point. You're trying to mix two things you have no practical knowledge of - Go and machine learning - and the results are coming off like a toddler trying to debate political science. Stick to subjects you actually have some knowledge of (or can at least believably fake competence at). LinkPizza posted... You still haven't given a valid reason on why they can't predict people movements other than "It's a lot", and that's not a valid reason since computers can process a lot of information. No computer in the world will ever be able to brute force a game of Go because it is literally impossible. There is not enough data in the universe to hold every single combination of Go. That was the point of this way back when we started this side tangent. If you don't understand that point, it simply means you don't understand big numbers. --- 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:954553512] in Controvers... [t:79384298]...</cite> <quote><quote> LinkPizza posted... And if they do, anything the robots make, find, mine, or whatever belongs to whoever owns or is renting them. So, things still cost money because it's not like the robots own it. Whoever owns them owns it. And they will sell for a profit.</quote>You're thinking too small. What if everyone owns these robots? As in, it's not owned by one person or business but everyone has their own personal all-purpose robot that can fill whatever function is needed? Cook a steak? Build a desk? Give Fluffy a checkup? All doable using the same bot. It's not as far-fetched as you'd think. All you need is one bot built by an altruist that can build other bots like itself. Even if the corporate interests don't want it to happen, there just needs to be one self-replicating robot to collapse the entire system. <quote> LinkPizza posted... Maybe it's be the government or state if not the farmer... But someone always owns something. And you can't assume that they will give their property away for free...</quote>If it's the government (and it is - all subsurface rights belong to the government) they can and will absolutely give things away for free, because if they're the only ones with commercial power than money effectively becomes meaningless. Which, y'know, is what I've been saying for a while. <quote> LinkPizza posted... I watched a short tutorial on Go, so I know how it works.</quote>Watching a short tutorial on Go (that you've already admitted you don't remember the details of) and claiming you know how it works is a bit like me watching a video tutorial on sutures and claiming I'm now a surgeon. <quote> LinkPizza posted... And just like any game, you can play defensively, passively, aggressively, etc.</quote>Just like "any game", you say? Tell me, how do you play Go Fish defensively? What's your passive strategy for Solitaire? Do you prefer an offensive or defensive game when you're playing Snakes and Ladders? Please stop trying to talk about a game you clearly have no understanding of. Whatever tutorial you watched, it wasn't enough for you to meaningfully participate in this conversation. <quote> LinkPizza posted... People play differently, and the robot can predict millions of moves per second.</quote>Which isn't meaningful when there are literally more possible game combinations than there are atoms in the observable universe. <quote> LinkPizza posted... Even without playing a game, if it knows how to play, it can probably still predict movements based on how they are starting to play.</quote>"Probably" meaning you don't actually know. Please, this is really getting sad at this point. You're trying to mix two things you have no practical knowledge of - Go and machine learning - and the results are coming off like a toddler trying to debate political science. Stick to subjects you actually have some knowledge of (or can at least believably fake competence at). <quote> LinkPizza posted... You still haven't given a valid reason on why they can't predict people movements other than "It's a lot", and that's not a valid reason since computers can process a lot of information.</quote>No computer in the world will ever be able to brute force a game of Go because it is literally impossible. There is not enough data in the universe to hold every single combination of Go. That was the point of this way back when we started this side tangent. If you don't understand that point, it simply means you don't understand big numbers. --- 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