Current Events > The digital age sucks

(+) Yeah! (+)

It seems the more and more the world progresses the sci-fi movies do seem to predict the future correctly, it's going to be robots doing things for us.

I want my robot to do me.
---

I don't think we will truly ever reach point where autonomous robots fulfill the jobs of every human.
Human nature is flawed, in that sense robots are flawed by their creators. Therefore we will never have unpiloted robots without a human being overseeing their actions
---

cant wait for skynet to fuck up humans

survival of the fittest bitches!
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

Human nature is flawed, in that sense robots are flawed by their creators.

This is such an ass-pull. Human nature is an ambiguous term, flawed is an objective value statement, and even if we accept the premise that human beings are flawed, that in no way affects their ability to create the perfect tool.

Digital age is just a number.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

Human nature is flawed, in that sense robots are flawed by their creators.

This is such an ass-pull. Human nature is an ambiguous term, flawed is an objective value statement, and even if we accept the premise that human beings are flawed, that in no way affects their ability to create the perfect tool.

But that's the thing. There has never been a perfect tool
Anything that has ever been made by man on a large scale/mass produced always features or carries the risk of defects.
Whether it's a car to an assault rifle, anything created by man has never truly been perfected.
---

ModLogic posted...

cant wait for skynet to fuck up humans

survival of the fittest bitches!

Imagine a world comprised only of fit bitches.

Nice.
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

Human nature is flawed, in that sense robots are flawed by their creators.

This is such an ass-pull. Human nature is an ambiguous term, flawed is an objective value statement, and even if we accept the premise that human beings are flawed, that in no way affects their ability to create the perfect tool.

But that's the thing. There has never been a perfect tool
Anything that has ever been made by man on a large scale/mass produced always features or carries the risk of defects.
Whether it's a car to an assault rifle, anything created by man has never truly been perfected.

So what does that have to do with robots doing basic tasks? You keep steering the conversation away from the actual point; when will robots be created to carry out menial tasks for humanity on a large scale? It doesn't matter if we are flawed, or even if the machines are flawed.

Like you said, everything from cars to assault rifles can have defects, but yet they are all still used en masse to perform their function. So why is it any different with robotic menial labor?

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

Human nature is flawed, in that sense robots are flawed by their creators.

This is such an ass-pull. Human nature is an ambiguous term, flawed is an objective value statement, and even if we accept the premise that human beings are flawed, that in no way affects their ability to create the perfect tool.

But that's the thing. There has never been a perfect tool
Anything that has ever been made by man on a large scale/mass produced always features or carries the risk of defects.
Whether it's a car to an assault rifle, anything created by man has never truly been perfected.

So what does that have to do with robots doing basic tasks? You keep steering the conversation away from the actual point; when will robots be created to carry out menial tasks for humanity on a large scale? It doesn't matter if we are flawed, or even if the machines are flawed.

Like you said, everything from cars to assault rifles can have defects, but yet they are all still used en masse to perform their function. So why is it any different with robotic menial labor?

When human's are flawed, they can achieve the desire to learn from it/or find a way to live with it.
A robot cannot, as it will always follow series of instruction.
That's all it is really.
A human cannot rely on a robot, for the simple fact that a robot is inherently flawed by their incapability to sort out their flaws.
---

I feel the same way sometimes. What if movies like Wall-E and Terminator are prophetic warnings of what our technology could lead to?

AcFan87 posted...

I feel the same way sometimes. What if movies like Wall-E and Terminator are prophetic warnings of what our technology could lead to?

i would worry if it turned into terminator, it would be human's fighting against the machine.
would have no chance.
---

the writers of sci-fi are well versed in science though and their novels/movies/shows are always within the realm of whats theoretically possible
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

Human nature is flawed, in that sense robots are flawed by their creators.

This is such an ass-pull. Human nature is an ambiguous term, flawed is an objective value statement, and even if we accept the premise that human beings are flawed, that in no way affects their ability to create the perfect tool.

But that's the thing. There has never been a perfect tool
Anything that has ever been made by man on a large scale/mass produced always features or carries the risk of defects.
Whether it's a car to an assault rifle, anything created by man has never truly been perfected.

So what does that have to do with robots doing basic tasks? You keep steering the conversation away from the actual point; when will robots be created to carry out menial tasks for humanity on a large scale? It doesn't matter if we are flawed, or even if the machines are flawed.

Like you said, everything from cars to assault rifles can have defects, but yet they are all still used en masse to perform their function. So why is it any different with robotic menial labor?

When human's are flawed, they can achieve the desire to learn from it/or find a way to live with it.
A robot cannot, as it will always follow series of instruction.
That's all it is really.
A human cannot rely on a robot, for the simple fact that a robot is inherently flawed by their incapability to sort out their flaws.

But there is absolutely nothing in this topic suggesting that they had to be perfect. Here is what he said;

xlyd posted...

t's going to be robots doing things for us.

Nothing said those robots have to be perfect or have the AI to learn new tasks.

Dash_Harber posted...
But there is absolutely nothing in this topic suggesting that they had to be perfect. Here is what he said;xlyd posted...

t's going to be robots doing things for us.

For a robot to replace human beings in terms of employment. It has to be able to accomplish its task without failure. If a robot fails it's task, or somehow ends up damage or destroyed in process of engaging its task...
The repairs/replacement for said robot may be expensive.
If a human being performs badly at their job, their employer may suggest to find another means of accomplishing their duty more efficiently. If unsatisfactory results continue, they can easily be replaced by another person that is more "skilled/or willing to fulfill their duty to the job"
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

For a robot to replace human beings in terms of employment. It has to be able to accomplish its task without failure. If a robot fails it's task, or somehow ends up damage or destroyed in process of engaging its task...

That's not true at all. Let's take automated tellers. They are not perfect. They breakdown and sometimes need to be repaired. However, they are still openly used across North America. Just because a tool has the capability of failing doesn't mean it is never used again.

Darkrobotisback posted...

The repairs/replacement for said robot may be expensive.

Yeah, that may be true, but as time carries on, they become waaaaaay cheaper.

Darkrobotisback posted...

If a human being performs badly at their job, their employer may suggest to find another means of accomplishing their duty more efficiently. If unsatisfactory results continue, they can easily be replaced by another person that is more "skilled/or willing to fulfill their duty to the job"

What the hell does this have to do with robots?

Seriously, you are arguing that robots will never take over any menial tasks because they can never be created to be 'perfect', despite the fact that there are plenty of examples of robots performing menial tasks right now.

Even the thing you quoted said "robots doing tasks" not "when will AI be able to flawlessly accomplish all current and possible menial tasks".

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

For a robot to replace human beings in terms of employment. It has to be able to accomplish its task without failure. If a robot fails it's task, or somehow ends up damage or destroyed in process of engaging its task...

That's not true at all. Let's take automated tellers. They are not perfect. They breakdown and sometimes need to be repaired. However, they are still openly used across North America. Just because a tool has the capability of failing doesn't mean it is never used again.

Darkrobotisback posted...

The repairs/replacement for said robot may be expensive.

Yeah, that may be true, but as time carries on, they become waaaaaay cheaper.

Darkrobotisback posted...

If a human being performs badly at their job, their employer may suggest to find another means of accomplishing their duty more efficiently. If unsatisfactory results continue, they can easily be replaced by another person that is more "skilled/or willing to fulfill their duty to the job"

What the hell does this have to do with robots?

Seriously, you are arguing that robots will never take over any menial tasks because they can never be created to be 'perfect', despite the fact that there are plenty of examples of robots performing menial tasks right now.

Even the thing you quoted said "robots doing tasks" not "when will AI be able to flawlessly accomplish all current and possible menial tasks".

1. If a large/small business corporation wants to be successful. They need skilled employees that are capable of accomplishing everyday task(s). Even low level/entry level jobs at said corporation requires the task to be accomplished, otherwise who'll maintain the site from sustaining property damage, prevent it from accumulating garbage, etc?
^no matter how "menial" or "labor intensive" those jobs are. Most companies will want to the task done at the lowest cost/cost efficient way possible. Why would they have a ~$500-$1,000 robot accomplish basic task(s), when they can hire someone that may be "nearly as skilled as the machine" and pay them at minimum wage salary (if not a bit more)?

2. And as time passes robots become obsolete, and the parts to refurbish/repair them become harder to find

3. Read bullet 1.
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

For a robot to replace human beings in terms of employment. It has to be able to accomplish its task without failure. If a robot fails it's task, or somehow ends up damage or destroyed in process of engaging its task...

That's not true at all. Let's take automated tellers. They are not perfect. They breakdown and sometimes need to be repaired. However, they are still openly used across North America. Just because a tool has the capability of failing doesn't mean it is never used again.

Darkrobotisback posted...

The repairs/replacement for said robot may be expensive.

Yeah, that may be true, but as time carries on, they become waaaaaay cheaper.

Darkrobotisback posted...

If a human being performs badly at their job, their employer may suggest to find another means of accomplishing their duty more efficiently. If unsatisfactory results continue, they can easily be replaced by another person that is more "skilled/or willing to fulfill their duty to the job"

What the hell does this have to do with robots?

Seriously, you are arguing that robots will never take over any menial tasks because they can never be created to be 'perfect', despite the fact that there are plenty of examples of robots performing menial tasks right now.

Even the thing you quoted said "robots doing tasks" not "when will AI be able to flawlessly accomplish all current and possible menial tasks".

1. If a large/small business corporation wants to be successful. They need skilled employees that are capable of accomplishing everyday task. Even low level/entry level jobs at said corporation requires the task to be accomplished, otherwise who'll maintain the site from sustaining property damage, prevent it from accumulating garbage, etc?
^no matter how "menial" or "labor intensive" those jobs are. Most companies will want to the task done at the lowest cost/cost efficient way possible. Why would they have a ~$500-$1,000 robot accomplish basic task(s), when they can hire someone that may be "nearly as skilled as the machine" and pay them at minimum wage salary (if not a bit more)?

2. And as time passes robots become obsolete, and the parts to refurbish/repair them become harder to find

3. Read bullet 1.

You don't seem to be understanding the initial question. I'm not arguing robots will replace every job, or that skilled laborers will take over for skilled professionals. No one is doing that. The question was when robots will take over menial tasks. They already do that. You are literally arguing against a point that not a single person is arguing here.

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

For a robot to replace human beings in terms of employment. It has to be able to accomplish its task without failure. If a robot fails it's task, or somehow ends up damage or destroyed in process of engaging its task...

That's not true at all. Let's take automated tellers. They are not perfect. They breakdown and sometimes need to be repaired. However, they are still openly used across North America. Just because a tool has the capability of failing doesn't mean it is never used again.

Darkrobotisback posted...

The repairs/replacement for said robot may be expensive.

Yeah, that may be true, but as time carries on, they become waaaaaay cheaper.

Darkrobotisback posted...

If a human being performs badly at their job, their employer may suggest to find another means of accomplishing their duty more efficiently. If unsatisfactory results continue, they can easily be replaced by another person that is more "skilled/or willing to fulfill their duty to the job"

What the hell does this have to do with robots?

Seriously, you are arguing that robots will never take over any menial tasks because they can never be created to be 'perfect', despite the fact that there are plenty of examples of robots performing menial tasks right now.

Even the thing you quoted said "robots doing tasks" not "when will AI be able to flawlessly accomplish all current and possible menial tasks".

1. If a large/small business corporation wants to be successful. They need skilled employees that are capable of accomplishing everyday task. Even low level/entry level jobs at said corporation requires the task to be accomplished, otherwise who'll maintain the site from sustaining property damage, prevent it from accumulating garbage, etc?
^no matter how "menial" or "labor intensive" those jobs are. Most companies will want to the task done at the lowest cost/cost efficient way possible. Why would they have a ~$500-$1,000 robot accomplish basic task(s), when they can hire someone that may be "nearly as skilled as the machine" and pay them at minimum wage salary (if not a bit more)?

2. And as time passes robots become obsolete, and the parts to refurbish/repair them become harder to find

3. Read bullet 1.

You don't seem to be understanding the initial question. I'm not arguing robots will replace every job, or that skilled laborers will take over for skilled professionals. No one is doing that. The question was when robots will take over menial tasks. They already do that. You are literally arguing against a point that not a single person is arguing here.

and menial jobs will not simply be taken over by machines completely.
As I said before, a company wants the task to be done at the most "cost efficient" way possible.
To employ a robot to accomplish said task, may not meet or merit those cost efficient standards for said company or job.
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

Darkrobotisback posted...

For a robot to replace human beings in terms of employment. It has to be able to accomplish its task without failure. If a robot fails it's task, or somehow ends up damage or destroyed in process of engaging its task...

That's not true at all. Let's take automated tellers. They are not perfect. They breakdown and sometimes need to be repaired. However, they are still openly used across North America. Just because a tool has the capability of failing doesn't mean it is never used again.

Darkrobotisback posted...

The repairs/replacement for said robot may be expensive.

Yeah, that may be true, but as time carries on, they become waaaaaay cheaper.

Darkrobotisback posted...

If a human being performs badly at their job, their employer may suggest to find another means of accomplishing their duty more efficiently. If unsatisfactory results continue, they can easily be replaced by another person that is more "skilled/or willing to fulfill their duty to the job"

What the hell does this have to do with robots?

Seriously, you are arguing that robots will never take over any menial tasks because they can never be created to be 'perfect', despite the fact that there are plenty of examples of robots performing menial tasks right now.

Even the thing you quoted said "robots doing tasks" not "when will AI be able to flawlessly accomplish all current and possible menial tasks".

1. If a large/small business corporation wants to be successful. They need skilled employees that are capable of accomplishing everyday task. Even low level/entry level jobs at said corporation requires the task to be accomplished, otherwise who'll maintain the site from sustaining property damage, prevent it from accumulating garbage, etc?
^no matter how "menial" or "labor intensive" those jobs are. Most companies will want to the task done at the lowest cost/cost efficient way possible. Why would they have a ~$500-$1,000 robot accomplish basic task(s), when they can hire someone that may be "nearly as skilled as the machine" and pay them at minimum wage salary (if not a bit more)?

2. And as time passes robots become obsolete, and the parts to refurbish/repair them become harder to find

3. Read bullet 1.

You don't seem to be understanding the initial question. I'm not arguing robots will replace every job, or that skilled laborers will take over for skilled professionals. No one is doing that. The question was when robots will take over menial tasks. They already do that. You are literally arguing against a point that not a single person is arguing here.

and menial jobs will not simply be taken over by machines completely.
As I said before, a company wants the task to be done at the most "cost efficient" way possible.
To employ a robot to accomplish said task, may not meet or merit those cost efficient standards for said company or job.

Again, no one said that. No one said 'when are robots going to do everything?".

Again, in some cases 'robots' are more efficient (such as with automated tellers).

Again, you are arguing against points no one is saying.

Again, no one said that. No one said 'when are robots going to do everything?".

Again, in some cases 'robots' are more efficient (such as with automated tellers).

Again, you are arguing against points no one is saying.

You keep saying "menial jobs"
What do you define as "menial"?
Because I consider low wage or minimum wage jobs/blue collar jobs as "menial".
I simply don't see robots taking over jobs like "7-11 cashier/clerk or MCDonalds Manager/cashier".
Menial jobs like that simply require people that are "personable".
Even janitorial jobs, require personable attributes or willingness to work with staff.
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

You keep saying "menial jobs"
What do you define as "menial"?

Robots doing some menial jobs =/ all menial jobs being staffed by robots.

Darkrobotisback posted...

I simply don't see robots taking over jobs like "7-11 cashier/clerk or MCDonalds Manager/cashier".

Then you are willfully blind to what is going on right now because they already are.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/mcdonalds-to-add-self-order-kiosks-to-1000-stores-each-quarter.html

Darkrobotisback posted...

Menial jobs like that simply require people that are "personable".

No, they don't. Some people prefer personal interaction, but as is the case with ordering kiosks and automated tellers (and even ATMs, for that matter) it's not required.

Darkrobotisback posted...

Even janitorial jobs, require personable attributes or willingness to work with staff.

No, it literally doesn't. It's an asset in some cases, but there are countless jobs in the service industry that have already been replaced by robots. Automated checkouts, ATMs, ordering kiosks, digital ordering, trip planning. Shit, even a Roomba is literally a robotic janitor.

Again though, you seem fixated on the idea that robots are going to replace all jobs. I never said that the OP never said that, no one implied it, nor did anyone even suggest it except for you.