Poll of the Day > Controversial Opinion #4: Automation

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 7
Firewerx
04/03/21 6:03:06 PM
#51:


Mead posted...
Theyre the same technology.
Can you outline some concrete examples where the same technology that cost workers their jobs simultaneously created new, alternative jobs for them at the same pay grade or higher?

---
Slaughterhouse 5
Cattle 0
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 6:34:22 PM
#52:


Firewerx posted...
Can you outline some concrete examples where the same technology that cost workers their jobs simultaneously created new, alternative jobs for them at the same pay grade or higher?

Did anyone make such a claim?

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 6:44:32 PM
#53:


Mead posted...
Theyre the same technology.

Except they aren't doing both things. The technology they're created is only taking away jobs, when they could instead just make job easier instead. The problem is that they are using it to take jobs. My point is to instead only use the technology that helps instead of replaces... If technology replaces someone without giving them another job, then that technology isn't helping... It's hurting...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 6:47:51 PM
#54:


LinkPizza posted...
Except they aren't doing both things. The technology they're created is only taking away jobs, when they could instead just make job easier instead. The problem is that they are using it to take jobs. My point is to instead only use the technology that helps instead of replaces... If technology replaces someone without giving them another job, then that technology isn't helping... It's hurting...

when you make jobs easier people can get more done and you need fewer workers

it only hurts if we retain a system where everyone NEEDS to work just to eke by

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 6:56:34 PM
#55:


Mead posted...
when you make jobs easier people can get more done and you need fewer workers

it only hurts if we retain a system where everyone NEEDS to work just to eke by

Not always, though. Not in a lot of case, tbh. When you have technology that's better, you can serve more people faster. Meaning you can get more customers. Meaning you can serve more. In the case of conveyor belts at the store. Now you can get people items rung up faster. Because of that, you can get more customer in and out of the store. And people may buy more since it's faster than usually. Meaning you actually might have more costumers buying more stuff. In that case, you might actually need more workings. Now more people have jobs, and people can get more stuff at the store and faster. Just because something makes something easier or faster doesn't always mean people will get fired over it. And the problem is that everyone still needs money. Especially since you said yourself that UBI isn't suppose to be enough to live off of in the other topic... People need to work to make enough money to live...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 7:32:26 PM
#56:


LinkPizza posted...
UBI isn't suppose to be enough to live off of in the other topic

it really depends

how much it takes to live depends on a lot of different factors based on the individual. You may not see it everywhere you look but the whole point of technology and automation is to reduce the amount of labor needed for tasks.

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 7:42:26 PM
#57:


Mead posted...
it really depends

how much it takes to live depends on a lot of different factors based on the individual. You may not see it everywhere you look but the whole point of technology and automation is to reduce the amount of labor needed for tasks.

The only way that good is if people have a source of income that they can live off. We don't. And for most people, the amount of UBI that's we'll get if it ever happens doesn't look like it'll be enough.. Even if some people can survive on $500 a month, I don't think many can. I don't want to reduce the amount of labor if that also means people have to go homeless because they don't have a job. People would probably rather work than go homeless because they are getting $500 a month from the government because their job was taken because a company figured that making money was more important than the people they employ. And that's on my main points. The reason I don't like automation is because it's reducing the amount of labor in the form of replacing people...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 7:47:19 PM
#58:


LinkPizza posted...
The only way that good is if people have a source of income that they can live off. We don't. And for most people, the amount of UBI that's we'll get if it ever happens doesn't look like it'll be enough.. Even if some people can survive on $500 a month, I don't think many can. I don't want to reduce the amount of labor if that also means people have to go homeless because they don't have a job. People would probably rather work than go homeless because they are getting $500 a month from the government because their job was taken because a company figured that making money was more important than the people they employ. And that's on my main points. The reason I don't like automation is because it's reducing the amount of labor in the form of replacing people...

dude in many parts of the country people are working and still cant afford to not be homeless

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 7:50:57 PM
#59:


Mead posted...
dude in many parts of the country people are working and still cant afford to not be homeless

Exactly! And we're making it worse for everybody by taking even more jobs away! And then, there are some people are barely making it working two jobs, and now we're telling those people that we're going to take one or both of them away, as well... That's the problem. We're using automation to fuck a bunch of people over... Just so the corporations can make more money... That's literally the problem... Don't you see?
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 7:54:49 PM
#60:


LinkPizza posted...
Exactly! And we're making it worse for everybody by taking even more jobs away! And then, there are some people are barely making it working two jobs, and now we're telling those people that we're going to take one or both of them away, as well... That's the problem. We're using automation to fuck a bunch of people over... Just so the corporations can make more money... That's literally the problem... Don't you see?

and UBI is the solution

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 8:00:12 PM
#61:


Mead posted...
and UBI is the solution

No. It's not, though. Because that's just a little extra. It can help some people. But many people would need more than the $500 we'll be giving them. Because apparently, UBI isn't suppose to be enough to acctually live on. It's just a supplement. And that will help maybe a few. But we'll still have people going homeless because they have no jobs, but they'll extra $500 a month... That's why we need automation to stop replacing humans, and just helping instead...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 8:10:29 PM
#62:


I think $500 or more a month would help nearly everyone. And it isnt enough to live on because most things arent automated at this point.

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 8:27:52 PM
#63:


Mead posted...
I think $500 or more a month would help nearly everyone. And it isnt enough to live on because most things arent automated at this point.

It will help. But that's it. But help is the key word. The problem is that not many people can get a house, food, and utilities off of $500 a month. Barely anybody could, tbh...A house on it's own is usually $500 a month. So, how is $500 a month going to help the ones with no job who has a house that's over $500 a month to live in? That's the problem. $500 a month is nice IF you also have a job to ensure you can actually still live in a house, with water and electricity, while being able to eat food... $500 a month when you have no job because it was automated while your house cost $750 is bad. And that's not even factoring in that even if you got an extra $250 somehow, you still need more money to get food and utilities... The problem is while $500 is nice, it's not enough for money people to live on it alone. And that's all they'll have once they lose their job to a machine...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 8:51:59 PM
#64:


LinkPizza posted...
It will help. But that's it. But help is the key word. The problem is that not many people can get a house, food, and utilities off of $500 a month. Barely anybody could, tbh...A house on it's own is usually $500 a month. So, how is $500 a month going to help the ones with no job who has a house that's over $500 a month to live in? That's the problem. $500 a month is nice IF you also have a job to ensure you can actually still live in a house, with water and electricity, while being able to eat food... $500 a month when you have no job because it was automated while your house cost $750 is bad. And that's not even factoring in that even if you got an extra $250 somehow, you still need more money to get food and utilities... The problem is while $500 is nice, it's not enough for money people to live on it alone. And that's all they'll have once they lose their job to a machine...

Youve convinced me that it should be higher than $500. The new number is $2500

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 8:59:07 PM
#65:


Mead posted...
Youve convinced me that it should be higher than $500. The new number is $2500

It doesn't matter what people want it to be. I want it to be $5000 every two weeks. But that's not going to happen. The problem is what people are going to get and have to deal with. The fact is you can't act UBI is the solution when we don't have any information on it. And the studies they, they use $500. Which means that might be what we get. And just like how Finland changes laws during UBI, that could happen to us. Maybe some people were fine when get both UBI and extra help from the government. Then maybe one day, it's one of the other. We cant act like UBI is a be all end all solution knowing nothing about it how it will actually be implemented. But if we base it on those pointless studies, it won't be enough to actually keep everybody alive, healthy, happy, and in a home...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
04/03/21 9:06:05 PM
#66:


LinkPizza posted...
And no one needing to work sounds boring.
Then you should try taking up a hobby. Work should not be the only thing in your life.

LinkPizza posted...
Especially when you can't afford anything because you make no money.
Why would money still exist in a world where robots make everything and human labour becomes redundant?

Money is a physical representation of scarcity, which is the idea that human labour is limited and we are therefore owed recompense for it. In a world where the human cost of the production of anything rounds down to zero, the very idea of money becomes pretty meaningless.

LinkPizza posted...
Self-checkouts have a computer, but also other things like a scanner, conveyor belt (for some), weight sensors (for some, again), and have to see how they will be used by people.
Scanners, conveyor belts, and weight sensors are technology that is decades old. They do not need to be tested to make a self-checkout station.

Hell, a self checkout station isn't really all that different from a normal cashier's station - they're relying on, more or less, the exact same technology.

By contrast, a smart phone is relying on numerous features (like cellular data transfer) and security mechanisms (like facial recognition) that had never been implemented on such a wide scale before. To call them "mini-computers" is laughably simplistic, given that they don't even share operating system architecture.

You think someone trying to steal $100 worth of groceries is bad? Your phone has to protect your banking info, which is probably worth several orders of magnitude more than that.

LinkPizza posted...
In 20 years, the amount of money that could have been save from self-checkouts in a ton.
Relative to their other expenses? No, not really. Otherwise, logically, they would have switched over by now.

If, by switching mortgage companies, I could somehow half my monthly payments I would have no reason not to do so. For self checkouts, stores simply didn't see enough financial incentive to make the change.

It's not an issue of the technology being there, it's an issue of there not being as much of a driver to adopt it. That is not true in the transportation sector, where individual wages are higher and collective wages make up a much, much higher portion of expenditure.

LinkPizza posted...
Like how the insurance will work, which I think is a big one.
Insurance will work the same as it does now. Insurance companies *love* self-driving cars for the same reason employers do - they're more reliable than humans. A customer that pays their premium every year and never gets into any accidents or has any claims is pretty much the perfect customer as far as an insurance company is concerned.

Have you noticed how insurance companies are already offering you discounts to install "safe driver" equipment on your car (like speed monitors that confirm you aren't speeding)? Self-driving cars are that taken to the extreme.

Insuring self-driving cars isn't a problem now, nor will it be in the future.

LinkPizza posted...
That's cars. But I'm talking about public transport.
So am I.

Automated buses are already on the road today and there are no issues with disabled people using them.

---
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!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 9:52:26 PM
#67:


LinkPizza posted...
I want it to be $5000 every two weeks.

I agree to your terms.

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 10:07:34 PM
#68:


darkknight109 posted...
Then you should try taking up a hobby. Work should not be the only thing in your life.

Work isn't the only thing in my life. When I was stuck at home for a while, I did a few things. But I started getting bored after a few days. I like going to work and talking with friends. A co-worker and I actually play games together while at work. And I talk to a few friends about anime. And another about just whatever. And you can only do a hobby so much before it becomes boring, as well. I can only read so many book, or play so many games, or watch so many videos before I get bored of it. Everything becomes boring so fast when that's all you do all day. So, sounds like a nightmare. At least work throws in some variety. That's why I wouldn't stop. But many are fine with just sitting around doing nothing and slowly dying...

darkknight109 posted...
Why would money still exist in a world where robots make everything and human labour becomes redundant?

Money is a physical representation of scarcity, which is the idea that human labour is limited and we are therefore owed recompense for it. In a world where the human cost of the production of anything rounds down to zero, the very idea of money becomes pretty meaningless.

Because people are greedy. And the ones in charge will keep money around so they can keep all the power. Just because robots make everything doesn't mean money disappears. It would take a lot to make money disappear. Especially because so things humans do better than robots. Like writ stories, and make games. And nobody would want to do that for no reason. Money isn't going away for a long time... And even if it would go away when everything is automated (I'm like 99.999999999999% sure it won't), the transition time between that and no is going to be hell for the people that aren't making money that still need it. People are already losing their jobs in the present...

darkknight109 posted...
Scanners, conveyor belts, and weight sensors are technology that is decades old. They do not need to be tested to make a self-checkout station.

Hell, a self checkout station isn't really all that different from a normal cashier's station - they're relying on, more or less, the exact same technology.

By contrast, a smart phone is relying on numerous features (like cellular data transfer) and security mechanisms (like facial recognition) that had never been implemented on such a wide scale before. To call them "mini-computers" is laughably simplistic, given that they don't even share operating system architecture.

You think someone trying to steal $100 worth of groceries is bad? Your phone has to protect your banking info, which is probably worth several orders of magnitude more than that.

They technology it uses it old (which makes sense since the self-checkout was invented in 1992 and is old technology itself). But it still needs to be tested with regular people use it themselves. And see how they actually interact with all of it. People fuck shit up all the time. Whether accidentally or on purpose... And while it's not different than a normal one, most people may not have used a normal one. Even if you worked in retail, many places don't use the conveyor belt and shit. They do a lot of the same stuff. They are basically like a mini-computer. I don't really see much difference in them. Just like how phones have facial recognition and fingerprint recognition, some computer do, as well... They both can have a lot of apps... Computer can usually do more, though... And for phones, you don't have to enter you banking data. I'd avoided that so if I lost it, I would hopefully be safe in that regard...

darkknight109 posted...
Relative to their other expenses? No, not really. Otherwise, logically, they would have switched over by now.

If, by switching mortgage companies, I could somehow half my monthly payments I would have no reason not to do so. For self checkouts, stores simply didn't see enough financial incentive to make the change.

It's not an issue of the technology being there, it's an issue of there not being as much of a driver to adopt it. That is not true in the transportation sector, where individual wages are higher and collective wages make up a much, much higher portion of expenditure.

They would save on paying people. Where you have 1 cashier per line (or in the case wher store have bagger, 2 people to pay per line), self checkouts normally have 1 person to watch 4 lines. And some have 1 person watching 8 lines in certain cases. But those are harder to manage. You can really cut down on many employees doing this. That saves a ton of money, especially over 20 years. To say otherwise in a bold-faced lie. Yet, they still haven't done this... So, why haven't they? There's a reason. And whatever that reason is will probably slow down the self-driving jobs, as well. And probably for a longer time period... Especially with many people in the public who don't trust self-driving vehicles. Especially in inclement weather...

darkknight109 posted...
Insurance will work the same as it does now. Insurance companies *love* self-driving cars for the same reason employers do - they're more reliable than humans. A customer that pays their premium every year and never gets into any accidents or has any claims is pretty much the perfect customer as far as an insurance company is concerned.

Have you noticed how insurance companies are already offering you discounts to install "safe driver" equipment on your car (like speed monitors that confirm you aren't speeding)? Self-driving cars are that taken to the extreme.

Insuring self-driving cars isn't a problem now, nor will it be in the future.

It's not the same, though. Because in most cases, they already know who's fault it is, even if the person is gone. And they'll shift. But this different since they are no drivers in either vehicle. So, it's not about whether companies will insure the car. It's about fault and who's paying the deductible in most cases. Because there will obviously be accidents...

darkknight109 posted...
So am I.

Automated buses are already on the road today and there are no issues with disabled people using them.

The only thing I saw was that one van. And that's not enough for the city I'm in. We pick up at least a hundred people in wheelchairs on a normal daily basis. Having a few of those (especially since it'll probably be pretty pricey) means that having a bunch of those will be nearly impossible. And a waste of money, if we're being honest... I mean, they already have enough trouble buying regular buses with the terrible amount they get a year. And they're busy trying to get vehicles that can hold more people to help the drivers. They aren't going to be wasting money on buying vehicles that can only hold a couple people at a time. Especially when they cost more than vehicles that can hold a decent amount... Plus, the guy in charge of buying the vehicles isn't even interested in the self-driving ones...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 10:07:47 PM
#69:


Mead posted...
I agree to your terms.

Problem in the people with the money don't...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/03/21 10:09:10 PM
#70:


LinkPizza posted...
Problem in the people with the money don't...

are you ok?

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 10:11:45 PM
#71:


Mead posted...
are you ok?

Not with automation...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
JigsawTDC
04/03/21 10:18:44 PM
#72:


LP has to be trolling at this point. His whole position on UBI is that it would encourage people not to work, but then goes on here to list several incentives for still working that are not monetary compensation. But it's other people who don't have those motivators that he has, and we need to be worried about them!

Then claims no one would write stories or make games if it wasn't for monetary compensation? As if those aren't hobbies people today pursue without any monetary compensation?

I've long suspected LP is a troll because he often has bizarre viewpoints that he backs up with circular logic, but this topic is confirming it for me.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
04/03/21 10:36:06 PM
#73:


I should throw out my computer and hire 50 people!!!!

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
Muscles
04/03/21 10:37:23 PM
#74:


There will be done growing pains but I think, overall, it'll be a good thing that allows people to follow more creative pursuits

---
Muscles
Chicago Bears | Chicago Blackhawks | Chicago Bulls | Chicago Cubs | NIU Huskies
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 10:44:17 PM
#75:


JigsawTDC posted...
LP has to be trolling at this point.

Nope. Automation taking jobs is one thing I really hate. You can believe whatever you want as I'm not here to change people's mind. But this is a point I stand firm on. If others don't care about people losing their jobs, it's whatever. But I actually do care... And my point on UBI was people wouldn't work if they got enough to survive on. But now poeple have changed it from enough to survive on to just a little extra even though I was always saying, "It they get UBI that's enough to survive on, they wouldn't work. Which is true. And those incentives are mine. I don't know if others feel the same way. Especially with the way they weasel out of work all the time. Some people really don't want to work. You see it on base all the time. The dream is to get out on full disability.\ from the Air Force so you get paid. And many love it. Me, I wouldn't. But even with UBI, I'd work. I like my job (even if the others don't). And some people do like their jobs. But I don't really think it's that many. People seem to always be complaining about work. And even when they were giving people money who couldn't work, many stayed away from work to earn the extra money. Like people at Muscle's job who wouldn't go back because they could make the same or better staying home and doing nothing. That's what I believe most people would do. Especially when they see all their friends doing it. But now, UBI is said to only be like $500, which isn't enough to actually live on...

Oh. I believe many people wouldn't write stories or make games without being compensated. Or it would be smaller teams that did, but that would take time. And money. Which is why many companies do thing like kickstarted and whatever. Some people do it literally for the money. You can tell sometimes. Movie do the same thing. Many sequels are shameless cash grabs (not all sequels or series are, but some definitely are)...

I'm not a troll, though. You'd be more of a troll than me. Though, I don't know enough about you to say whether you are or are not as I rarely talk to you. But think whatever you want. Not like we interact much, anyway...

ReturnOfFa posted...
I should throw out my computer and hire 50 people!!!!

Go ahead. You could give some people a job. I mean, it you have the money to. Plus, I don't know what you'd hire them to do...

Muscles posted...
There will be done growing pains but I think, overall, it'll be a good thing that allows people to follow more creative pursuits

If they can even make it past the growing pains...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
JigsawTDC
04/03/21 10:52:53 PM
#76:


Okay, based on that explanation I'm willing to believe you're not a troll. Just incredibly stubborn and stuck in a particular mode of thinking. And if you're not trolling, I think your hate of automation is a bit misplaced and misunderstood. But considering how everything has been clearly explained to you multiple times over, I don't think you actually want to understand. You want to be upset at automation and have made it part of your identity, so nothing we present here is going to change that. It's just that the only disservice here is to yourself. You can hate automation and grow increasingly disgruntled at it's inevitability, or you can learn to accept it and see the benefits it provides. I'm not arguing that every aspect of automation is good, but I do think you're setting yourself up for a lifetime of annoyance if you're going to be bothered by all future automation.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/03/21 11:05:05 PM
#77:


I could have told you before that nothing was going to change my mind on it. I knw that from the start. Just like I wasn't trying to change anyone else's mind. That's how I feel about automation. And nothing is going to change that. They are taking jobs away from people. And instead of helping, they are just replacing... And I'd rather just not deal with it. So, I'll just avoid it as much as I can until I'm dead... I mean, I don't even use self-checkout at the store. I've most stopped using the app for many of the food places (Though I literally can't get what i want from most). And I do my best to talk to humans on the calls to companies. But that's also because the robot voice almost always offer literally very little help, if any at all... And I'm only really bothered by things that take human jobs... Or force me to do something. For example, I could care less about self-driving cars (I don't have a problem with self-driving vehicles taking jobs, but that's a different issue). But I won't every own or use on. And I wouldn't be happy if they tried to force one of me and tell me I wasn't allowed to drive. But I think that's way far away...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
blu
04/03/21 11:12:32 PM
#78:


JigsawTDC posted...
Okay, based on that explanation I'm willing to believe you're not a troll. Just incredibly stubborn and stuck in a particular mode of thinking.

LinkPizza is very literal and somewhat stubborn person. He forms strong opinions based entirely on personal experience, generally knows that he does this, and is okay with forming opinions that way. But also hes a good person and wouldnt troll you.
... Copied to Clipboard!
JigsawTDC
04/03/21 11:13:58 PM
#79:


LinkPizza posted...
I could have told you before that nothing was going to change my mind on it.

I think you did state as much from the beginning or close to it. Didn't stop any of us from trying lol.

I'm not going to debate anything, but since self-checkout has been brought up many, many times, this is probably a worthwhile anecdote: I've worked at several grocery stores in the past, two of which implemented self-checkouts while I was there. In both cases we didn't fire anyone. In fact, in one of the cases we hired two new people because we had to promote some cashiers to self-checkout monitors.

Also, self-checkouts are pretty much just a normal cashier terminal minus the cash drawer and second display. The primary difference between them and a normal terminal isn't any of the features the customer interacts with, but the internal system of how it sorts and organizes cash.
... Copied to Clipboard!
JigsawTDC
04/03/21 11:18:34 PM
#80:


blu posted...
LinkPizza is very literal and somewhat stubborn person. He forms strong opinions based entirely on personal experience, generally knows that he does this, and is okay with forming opinions that way. But also hes a good person and wouldnt troll you.

This seems like a reasonable assessment based on what I've seen from him. For what it's worth I don't equate "troll" and "bad person" though. I think there can be good people trolls, and bad people trolls (which itself is entirely separate from being a good troll or a bad troll). Even if I had stuck with my troll assessment, I would not have considered him a bad person based on anything I've seen here or elsewhere.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/04/21 12:11:16 AM
#81:


JigsawTDC posted...
I think you did state as much from the beginning or close to it. Didn't stop any of us from trying lol.

I'm not going to debate anything, but since self-checkout has been brought up many, many times, this is probably a worthwhile anecdote: I've worked at several grocery stores in the past, two of which implemented self-checkouts while I was there. In both cases we didn't fire anyone. In fact, in one of the cases we hired two new people because we had to promote some cashiers to self-checkout monitors.

Also, self-checkouts are pretty much just a normal cashier terminal minus the cash drawer and second display. The primary difference between them and a normal terminal isn't any of the features the customer interacts with, but the internal system of how it sorts and organizes cash.

They were hiring at first, but theyve gone the other way recently. Like at the Walmarts here. Self-checkout was here for a while, but they also had tons of cashiers during the day. Theyve gone down to just a few. Many of them were fired. The firing on employees is somewhat recent. Like in the last few years. Thats one of the things that made me stop liking self-checkout. When people were still able to work, it was fine. When they started firing people over it, thats when it became less fine...

And I know how to use one and can just them easily. I have no problem with the technology itself. I have a problem with people losing their job to it...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Sarcasthma
04/04/21 12:37:41 AM
#82:


I used to be against automation, but this topic has changed my mind.

---
What's the difference between a pickpocket and a peeping tom?
A pickpocket snatches your watch.
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
04/04/21 12:58:13 PM
#83:


LinkPizza posted...
And you can only do a hobby so much before it becomes boring, as well.
Then get more hobbies. You say work offers variety? Then vary up your personal life as well. There's no reason why you need to rely on work to do that.

Shit, if I didn't have to work I could easily go 500 years without getting bored.

LinkPizza posted...
Because people are greedy.
Greed doesn't factor into it. You can't be "greedy" when everything is, essentially, produced for free. You can have everything you want and that still won't impede anyone else for getting the same thing.

Even if money sticks around, it will swiftly become meaningless because robots exist and have an upkeep-to-labour ratio that rounds down to zero.

LinkPizza posted...
Especially because so things humans do better than robots. Like writ stories, and make games. And nobody would want to do that for no reason.
Well, first of all, the deluge of free stories and games available online *right now* kind of highlights the lie in this assertion. More to the point, you're talking about a fully automated world - in a fully automated world, robots will be able to make games and write stories as good or better than humans can.

Robots can already produce art and write stories and write programs. They can't do it as well as humans can *yet*, but they will improve and get there eventually.

LinkPizza posted...
the transition time between that and no is going to be hell for the people that aren't making money that still need it
This is what I highlighted before and you dismissed - the transition time is the rough part; the end result is not something to be feared.

And we can manage the transition through things like UBI, but that needs to have more political will put behind it for it to be effective.

---
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!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
04/04/21 12:58:16 PM
#84:


LinkPizza posted...
They technology it uses it old (which makes sense since the self-checkout was invented in 1992 and is old technology itself). But it still needs to be tested with regular people use it themselves. And see how they actually interact with all of it. People fuck shit up all the time. Whether accidentally or on purpose...
This argument is just as applicable to smart phones as self-checkouts.

LinkPizza posted...
And for phones, you don't have to enter you banking data.
But that is an option that smartphones offer and therefore, like all other tools and functionalities - from touch screens to facial recognition to data security - it must be extensively tested, whether you - a single end user - choose to make use of it or not.

LinkPizza posted...
That saves a ton of money, especially over 20 years.
You're not getting this.

Yes, it saves money - I never disputed that. I'm saying that, proportional to their other expenses, it doesn't save enough for it to drive significant change. Like, if someone offered me a way to save $100 a year, that's cool... but sheer human laziness means there's an excellent chance I won't bother, given that it's a tiny portion of my take-home income. On the other hand, if someone offered me a way to save $50,000 a year, then yeah, I'd take that in a heartbeat.

Same thing with grocery stores. Wages are *not* a big part of their expenses, relative to the other costs they have to pay out, so even if they could halve their workforce (and that's a very open question, given that cashiers in most stores aren't *exclusively* cashiers and still have to help with things like stocking and inventory) it's not going to have nearly as big of an impact on them as that same reduction in work force would have on the transportation sector.

LinkPizza posted...
It's not the same, though. Because in most cases, they already know who's fault it is, even if the person is gone. And they'll shift. But this different since they are no drivers in either vehicle. So, it's not about whether companies will insure the car. It's about fault and who's paying the deductible in most cases. Because there will obviously be accidents...
You keep acting like self-driving cars aren't on the road, insured, today.

They are. This problem has already been looked at and determined to not be a problem.

With self-driving cars, it's far easier to determine who is at fault because the cars all have cameras in them, so you review the footage and say "Oh, that car's AI did something it wasn't supposed to - that car's insurance company now has to pay up."

And insurance companies are happy to take that arrangement because, again, the accident rate for self-driving cars is far below the average human driver.

LinkPizza posted...
The only thing I saw was that one van.
Then you haven't been looking.

I'll say it again: self-driving buses already exist. They've already addressed the problems you're talking about. This is not an issue for them.

---
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!
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
04/04/21 1:24:22 PM
#85:


welcome to 'being concerned about things I don't understand'

tomorrow we'll be featuring my roommate.

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/04/21 2:09:50 PM
#86:


darkknight109 posted...
Then get more hobbies. You say work offers variety? Then vary up your personal life as well. There's no reason why you need to rely on work to do that.

Shit, if I didn't have to work I could easily go 500 years without getting bored.

I already mention multiple. So, that's doesn't really work. You can still get bored of all of them. Then there's still the problem that everyone has that many interests. And just because you want a new interest doesn't mean you'll find one. And even then, many interest cost some kind of starting fund. Which nobody will have any money for... And that's great for you. But it's not the same for everybody. Some people are content staying home, and doing nothing. Or doing the same thing. Some aren't... And those are the usually the one terrorizing the neighborhood for fun...

darkknight109 posted...
Greed doesn't factor into it. You can't be "greedy" when everything is, essentially, produced for free. You can have everything you want and that still won't impede anyone else for getting the same thing.

Even if money sticks around, it will swiftly become meaningless because robots exist and have an upkeep-to-labour ratio that rounds down to zero.


darkknight109 posted...
Well, first of all, the deluge of free stories and games available online *right now* kind of highlights the lie in this assertion. More to the point, you're talking about a fully automated world - in a fully automated world, robots will be able to make games and write stories as good or better than humans can.

Robots can already produce art and write stories and write programs. They can't do it as well as humans can *yet*, but they will improve and get there eventually.

Yes. You absolutely can. Producing everything for free means everything is profit for them. And they'll try to keep it like that. making all the money without having to use any... Just because you aren't greedy doesn't mean others aren't. So, they powerful will definitely try to keep money around so that they;ll till be in power. It's nave to think they'll be fine with just letting everything be free. Sometimes, people will find a cheaper way to mass produce something. But they'll leave the price the same. Because it means more profit to them. Even it the product winds up being shittier... Because money...

darkknight109 posted...
This is what I highlighted before and you dismissed - the transition time is the rough part; the end result is not something to be feared.

And we can manage the transition through things like UBI, but that needs to have more political will put behind it for it to be effective.

There's no lie. You're lying if you think that's a lie. Just because some games and stories suck doesn't mean the robots are better. Just means that some suck. But the best games and stories are by people. The ones by robots are usually just copying the data fed into them to make something absurd. I've seen a few videos written by them, and heard a few stories. And they just take the data, mish mash it together, and shits it out. The only reason they are usually any funny is because of the absolute sense they don't make. Which is ok once in a while. But not for everything... People will always make better stories and games... Because people do they best to come up with something original. Or write a classic in an original way. Where robots just take the data the have to make stuff, so it never feels original...

darkknight109 posted...
This argument is just as applicable to smart phones as self-checkouts.

No. I never dismissed it. I literally said, "And who said I'm not worried about the time in between. In another UBI topic months or a year ago, I said I was worried about transition points the most because those are the times when every could go wrong will go wrong..."(post #47) So, yeah. I said I WAS worried about the transition point, as well... That's the worse part. And I think that's where most of the trouble will happen... That being said, this might be what kills us. The Great Filter that's talked about...

darkknight109 posted...
But that is an option that smartphones offer and therefore, like all other tools and functionalities - from touch screens to facial recognition to data security - it must be extensively tested, whether you - a single end user - choose to make use of it or not.

You would think. But people still have trouble with it. Just like phones. But even then, phone are like mini-computers. And work the same for many people. Checkout counters has been around for a while. But many have only use the ones that cashiers used instead of them. Even today. I personally know how to use them, but purposely avoid them. But I've seen some people who just never use it because they just don't know how, or always have trouble with it. Plus, unlike smartphones, they aren't always pushed on you. Smartphones are getting to be push on everyone, though. Many phone stores that have older phones don't always put them out on display. Everything is a smartphone. So, even when people don't know how to use them, they get pushed to customers. And then you get all the parents and grandparents asking their kids how to do this or that. But self-checkout isn't pushed everywhere yet. Like I said, some stores still don't even have them, so some people avoid them by going to others stores. Which is why it's strange it's not pushed when it saves them so much money...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/04/21 2:09:54 PM
#87:


darkknight109 posted...
You're not getting this.

Yes, it saves money - I never disputed that. I'm saying that, proportional to their other expenses, it doesn't save enough for it to drive significant change. Like, if someone offered me a way to save $100 a year, that's cool... but sheer human laziness means there's an excellent chance I won't bother, given that it's a tiny portion of my take-home income. On the other hand, if someone offered me a way to save $50,000 a year, then yeah, I'd take that in a heartbeat.

Same thing with grocery stores. Wages are *not* a big part of their expenses, relative to the other costs they have to pay out, so even if they could halve their workforce (and that's a very open question, given that cashiers in most stores aren't *exclusively* cashiers and still have to help with things like stocking and inventory) it's not going to have nearly as big of an impact on them as that same reduction in work force would have on the transportation sector.

But there's no reason for the CEO's to not do this as it's not them having to do this. They just tell someone else. And the amount aren't insignificant, either. That's massive amounts that they save over time depends on what they give employees (Not just wages, but everything that has cost). And they are trying to get rid of stockers, as well. Amazon's working on robots to do the stocking for them. Also, if you think that cost is insignificant, then they probably won't do buses, either. Bus drivers don't get paid that much. I've seen some of their checks. So, if it's not a big deal for grocery stores, then it won't be a big deal for bus stations, either...

darkknight109 posted...
You keep acting like self-driving cars aren't on the road, insured, today.

They are. This problem has already been looked at and determined to not be a problem.

With self-driving cars, it's far easier to determine who is at fault because the cars all have cameras in them, so you review the footage and say "Oh, that car's AI did something it wasn't supposed to - that car's insurance company now has to pay up."

And insurance companies are happy to take that arrangement because, again, the accident rate for self-driving cars is far below the average human driver.

I know they are. But there aren't many. Once they are a ton on the road, things will change. There will probably be more accidents. More self-driving vehicles means more chances for one or more to have a malfunction. Especially when people are around, as well... Things will be different, meaning directives will also have to change. You acting like they're common place already when they're aren't that many on the road compared to the amount of human driven vehicles... And you can't determine something is not a problem when they haven't even been able to see how it will actually be once the road is filled with them. There will be multiple malfunctions because there will be a ton of them. And they all won't be perfect. That's the problem. A road filled with self-driving vehicles is different from a road filled with human driven vehicles and a few self-driving ones, as well... And that's especially so when you add pedestrians into the mix...

darkknight109 posted...
Then you haven't been looking.

I'll say it again: self-driving buses already exist. They've already addressed the problems you're talking about. This is not an issue for them.

I'm looking at the one you sent me... And they've address the issue of picking up one. Not multiple. Especially since where I am, there are multiple people per route. Send me the others one that pick up at least 3 people in wheelchairs while also carrying the regular customers... And they lock them in securely with the rest. Because that's what our bus drivers do right now... And that can hold at least 32 (or 26) people (like our current buses), and don't cost much more than $1M, which I think it the price of our buses driven by drivers.

ReturnOfFa posted...
welcome to 'being concerned about things I don't understand'

tomorrow we'll be featuring my roommate.

I understand it. I just don't like it...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/04/21 2:12:52 PM
#88:


Labor is one of the highest costs of doing business of nearly every industry. If they can cut down on labor, theyre going to do so.

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
04/04/21 2:54:35 PM
#89:


not liking things irrationally is weird

it's like irrational dislike of bikes

irrational dislike of government

why have blanket likes and dislikes when things are obviously more complex than such an oversimplification?

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
Kanatteru
04/04/21 2:58:22 PM
#90:


ReturnOfFa posted...
why have blanket likes and dislikes when things are obviously more complex than such an oversimplification?

it seems to me like linkpizza is very set in his lifestyle and does not wish for anything that would require him to change it, even if it is objectively beneficial for society (including him). which is why he gets in these circular "i don't like it because it's bad" arguments

---
despair-inducing
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/04/21 3:03:29 PM
#91:


Mead posted...
Labor is one of the highest costs of doing business of nearly every industry. If they can cut down on labor, theyre going to do so.

Which sucks for the people who need to do that labor to make money...

ReturnOfFa posted...
not liking things irrationally is weird

it's like irrational dislike of bikes

irrational dislike of government

why have blanket likes and dislikes when things are obviously more complex than such an oversimplification?

Just because it's irrational to you doesn't mean it's irrational. To me, the reasons I don't like them are rational... And it's not a blanket dislike. Like I said before in post #77, "And I'm only really bothered by things that take human jobs... Or force me to do something." So, it's not a blanket dislike...

Kanatteru posted...
it seems to me like linkpizza is very set in his lifestyle and does not wish for anything that would require him to change it, even if it is objectively beneficial for society (including him). which is why he gets in these circular "i don't like it because it's bad" arguments

I don't mind if it actually helps. But taking away jobs isn't helping when many people need those jobs... I don't know why people think that people losing jobs is beneficial for society... Because that's literally what people are saying. Automation is taking away jobs, but who cares about those people because I can scan my own groceries now and do someone else jobs for free...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
04/04/21 3:06:41 PM
#92:


Everything could be outsourced to human jobs, like my goofy example of getting rid of my computer. I should really be hiring someone to post these message I am typing as letters. That would employ far more people.

The point is, that expectation is hilarious and ridiculous. Some balance in the discussion is required, and if you're going to fully be arguing from a place of "I'm being rational even though everyone else is indicating that I'm being irrational", then there's no point in even pontificating on it.

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
04/04/21 3:07:49 PM
#93:


It's like saying "I don't like felines, convince me otherwise.".

Then when everyone gives you great examples of felines being great, you still say "Well, I just don't trust them.".

OK, fantastic.

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
04/04/21 3:09:19 PM
#94:


LinkPizza posted...
. And even then, many interest cost some kind of starting fund. Which nobody will have any money for...
Again, fully automated world, money doesn't exist.

Want to get into painting? A robot will make you some paints, an easel, and a palette. Baseball more your thing? A robot will make you a glove, a bat, and a ball. Board games? Musical instruments? Photography? Any "start-up" costs can be taken care of via automated labour, effectively for free.

LinkPizza posted...
Yes. You absolutely can. Producing everything for free means everything is profit for them. And they'll try to keep it like that. making all the money without having to use any... Just because you aren't greedy doesn't mean others aren't. So, they powerful will definitely try to keep money around so that they;ll till be in power. It's nave to think they'll be fine with just letting everything be free. Sometimes, people will find a cheaper way to mass produce something. But they'll leave the price the same. Because it means more profit to them. Even it the product winds up being shittier... Because money...
Greed - and commerce - requires other people to have money. If I want to sell my new invention for 100 DKDollars, but no one else in the world has DKDollars, then I can't exactly charge money for it anymore.

Same thing here. In a fully automated world, robots take over all the jobs. No human jobs means no human income, which ultimately means no human money. Fortunately, since money is simply recompense for human labour, this is not an issue because there is no human labour anymore.

LinkPizza posted...
Just because some games and stories suck doesn't mean the robots are better. Just means that some suck. But the best games and stories are by people.
At the moment, yes, this is true. But you're talking about a fully automated future. We've already proved that robots can make art and games; now they just need to learn more and get better at it. They will surpass us one day and it will probably be in decades, not centuries.

LinkPizza posted...
There's no lie. You're lying if you think that's a lie.
You claimed that no one would want to make games and write stories for free, which is ignoring that there are lots of people *today* who make games and write stories for free, largely because they find it interesting. That's why I called it a lie.

LinkPizza posted...
People will always make better stories and games... Because people do they best to come up with something original.
So what is inherent in our biological grey-matter computers that allows us to come up with "original" ideas that is impossible to replicate in a sufficiently advanced AI?

LinkPizza posted...
But self-checkout isn't pushed everywhere yet.
I never claimed that it was and I'm not really sure why you went on this side-tangent, because it's not related to anything I talked about.

---
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!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
04/04/21 3:09:23 PM
#95:


LinkPizza posted...
But there's no reason for the CEO's to not do this as it's not them having to do this.
Sure there is.

It's not like someone comes up to you and says, "Hey, this will automatically save you $5 million a year!". What you see is someone selling a product for $XX. You then need to do the research to see how reliable these products are, what the maintenance costs are, how many workers you could feasibly replace with automatons, and whether the whole effort is worth it. There's non-zero time, investiture, and effort that goes into that - if the projected savings aren't expected to be significant, the CEO probably won't bother at that point until the math changes (they may, for instance, wait for the tech to become cheaper so that the start-up costs are minimized).

LinkPizza posted...
Also, if you think that cost is insignificant, then they probably won't do buses, either. Bus drivers don't get paid that much.
I've already explained the difference numerous times.

For most retailers, staff salary is a relatively small expense; for transportation, staff salary is their largest expense. Being able to replace their drivers could feasibly more than double their profits in some industries, which is something that a retailer cannot claim. There is a big difference in cost drivers between those two industries.

LinkPizza posted...
Once they are a ton on the road, things will change. There will probably be more accidents. More self-driving vehicles means more chances for one or more to have a malfunction.
The accident rate of a self-driving vehicle is much lower than the average human driver.

Because the rate is already adjusted for the number of vehicles on the road (and the amount of kilometres those vehicles drive), this will not changed as self-driving cars become more widely adopted. If anything, widespread adoption will drop accident rates even farther, because self-driving cars can talk to one another (and to smart tech in and on the road itself) in ways that human-operated cars never could. A self-driving car could signal another self-driving car that it is experiencing a brake malfunction in order to avert an accident; a human-driven car cannot do the same.

You are trying to create a problem where none exists.

LinkPizza posted...
And they all won't be perfect.
They don't need to be; they just need to be better than us.

And you know what? They already are. And they're getting better each year.

LinkPizza posted...
I'm looking at the one you sent me...
Which is not the only one that exists.

---
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!
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/04/21 3:09:25 PM
#96:


ReturnOfFa posted...
Everything could be outsourced to human jobs, like my goofy example of getting rid of my computer. I should really be hiring someone to post these message I am typing as letters. That would employ far more people.

The point is, that expectation is hilarious and ridiculous. Some balance in the discussion is required, and if you're going to fully be arguing from a place of "I'm being rational even though everyone else is indicating that I'm being irrational", then there's no point in even pontificating on it.

Again, I don't think it's irrational. The problem is something that seems rational to one person may not seem rational to another and vice versa. So, I don't see not liking humans being replaced by machines and losing their income as irrational... Seems very rational to me...

ReturnOfFa posted...
It's like saying "I don't like felines, convince me otherwise.".

Then when everyone gives you great examples of felines being great, you still say "Well, I just don't trust them.".

OK, fantastic.

Except I'm not saying to convince. I said it before, I don't plan on changing my mind, or changing anyone else's mind. And the examples aren't really that great to me...
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mead
04/04/21 3:10:14 PM
#97:


LinkPizza posted...
Which sucks for the people who need to do that labor to make money...

which I think people should get some money by default since automation is starting to replace some forms of labor

and automated systems dont need anywhere near the amount of capital they can produce

---
YOU control the numbers of leches. -Sal Vulcano
... Copied to Clipboard!
JigsawTDC
04/04/21 3:46:00 PM
#98:


darkknight109 posted...
You are trying to create a problem where none exists.

This is the crux of LP's position in a nutshell. His arguments are just becoming increasingly more absurd. I legit feel bad for anyone this willfully stubborn. Like, I don't think it's so much an issue in this conversation, but if that carries over to other aspects of life, I can't imagine that being conducive to a healthy life.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
04/04/21 3:54:34 PM
#99:


JigsawTDC posted...
This is the crux of LP's position in a nutshell. His arguments are just becoming increasingly more absurd. I legit feel bad for anyone this willfully stubborn. Like, I don't think it's so much an issue in this conversation, but if that carries over to other aspects of life, I can't imagine that being conducive to a healthy life.
Yeah, it isn't. I live with someone arguably more stubborn. Can't entertain my POV but where has it got him? Parked in front of youtube all day with 10 year old stale food in the cupboards. Not saying LP is like that, but idk I've met/lived with a lot of stubborn people that don't seem to know what they're doing whatsoever.

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
04/04/21 4:15:31 PM
#100:


darkknight109 posted...
Again, fully automated world, money doesn't exist.

Want to get into painting? A robot will make you some paints, an easel, and a palette. Baseball more your thing? A robot will make you a glove, a bat, and a ball. Board games? Musical instruments? Photography? Any "start-up" costs can be taken care of via automated labour, effectively for free.

There's no proof that money won't exist. Everyone is only assuming that. But there's no proof of that at all... it's just assumptions and wishful thinking. So, until there's actual proof that money goes away, most hobbies, have some sort of startup cost...

darkknight109 posted...
Greed - and commerce - requires other people to have money. If I want to sell my new invention for 100 DKDollars, but no one else in the world has DKDollars, then I can't exactly charge money for it anymore.

Same thing here. In a fully automated world, robots take over all the jobs. No human jobs means no human income, which ultimately means no human money. Fortunately, since money is simply recompense for human labour, this is not an issue because there is no human labour anymore.

That's if it happens like that. Even now, people have already lost their jobs and have no money to pay for anything. Doesn't mean everything given for free because some people do have money. And when barely anyone has money, there will always be a few with money. Then there's the measly $500 UBI that people really want. Technically, that would be money, too. The people with money don't want to lose that power from the money. So, they'll make sure some people have money to give them. Or limit what you can have. Anything to keep that power. And currently, money is the key to that power. As long as they can make sure people have a little money when they have a lot, and keep things costing an amount, they can keep that power... And they'll do everything in their power to do that...

darkknight109 posted...
At the moment, yes, this is true. But you're talking about a fully automated future. We've already proved that robots can make art and games; now they just need to learn more and get better at it. They will surpass us one day and it will probably be in decades, not centuries.

Nah. I don't think they'll ever surpass us. Maybe they'll catch up one day... In the race is still alive by then. But I don't see them ever getting better...

darkknight109 posted...
You claimed that no one would want to make games and write stories for free, which is ignoring that there are lots of people *today* who make games and write stories for free, largely because they find it interesting. That's why I called it a lie.

That's if they still want to do it. Or have the funds to do so. And many people do it now for free to get their foot in the door to do it for money later. Meaning that many probably wouldn't do it for no reason. It like when people make a good free game on the internet, and eventually, a bunch of people play it. And now they can make a better game that cost money. Some people do it for that specific reason. Make something for free to get noticed, then make more for money...

darkknight109 posted...
So what is inherent in our biological grey-matter computers that allows us to come up with "original" ideas that is impossible to replicate in a sufficiently advanced AI?

The fact that the AI needs something to work off of. The ones we have don't just make up anything. They require data input, then they mix it together to spit something out. The problem is they need that data input to work. That's why all the stuff that was written always seemed absurd, and a random mix of stuff...

darkknight109 posted...
I never claimed that it was and I'm not really sure why you went on this side-tangent, because it's not related to anything I talked about.

There has to be a reason for that when putting it everywhere would make more money. So then what's the hold up on a technology that's been out for 30 years. Why would it take this long. And if self-checkout takes this long, I feel other technologies could take even longer. Like self-driving vehicles...

darkknight109 posted...
Sure there is.

It's not like someone comes up to you and says, "Hey, this will automatically save you $5 million a year!". What you see is someone selling a product for $XX. You then need to do the research to see how reliable these products are, what the maintenance costs are, how many workers you could feasibly replace with automatons, and whether the whole effort is worth it. There's non-zero time, investiture, and effort that goes into that - if the projected savings aren't expected to be significant, the CEO probably won't bother at that point until the math changes (they may, for instance, wait for the tech to become cheaper so that the start-up costs are minimized).

They seem to be saving a lot, though. The goal is to have about 468,000 installed by 2024 with $4B in the market. Now would be the best time while you can still get it before it becomes even more expensive when all stores pretty much need them.
---
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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 7