Poll of the Day > Controversial Opinion #4: Automation

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkknight109 posted...

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.

It's not their largest expense by a long shot. Everything is more expensive in transportation. They have gas, which cost a lot. The vehicles cost a lot. And the parts for the vehicles cost a lot. Paying their staff is one of the cheapest expenses they have. I was working in transportation. I've asked my old boss about the numbers before. Payment of staff is nothing compared to literally everything else... So, it still stands that they won't do this for buses since this won't actually save them a lot... if you think that is the reason...

darkknight109 posted...

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.

It probably will change as it's an estimate. But how they act will change as more are on the road. And human drivers could signal each other in certain cases. And there are certain things a human might not that a self-driving car might not, as well... And I think with more cars, there's also a higher chance of things happening if a miscommunication happens, which could cause a chain reaction. Or a pedestrian doing something dumb, causing a car to try to move out of the way, which causes a reaction with all of them, and could cause more of a mess... Because pedestrians will definitely do something dumb...

darkknight109 posted...

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.

Yes. But even then, there will still be problems. And that's why I'm saying insurance can get very confusing, especially when a chain reaction happens...

darkknight109 posted...

Which is not the only one that exists.

Then show me the better ones, like I out in the rest of the quote you cut out...

Mead posted...

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

But even if we go with the UBI that they practice, $500 isn't enough. Especially if they do what Finland did, and stop giving out other assistances some people needed.

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.

I'm perfectly fine in my life. I just don't like automation taking people's job... Or being forced into a self-driving... Which is why I won't be getting in one (Though I also have reason why I don't trust them)...
---

LinkPizza posted...

But even if we go with the UBI that they practice, $500 isn't enough. Especially if they do what Finland did, and stop giving out other assistances some people needed.

2nd part isn't true

---

LinkPizza posted...

There's no proof that money won't exist.

Yes there is.

I've already covered this - money is a measure of human labour. It was invented when we shifted from a barter economy ("I will trade you one goat for a cubit of lumber") into a monetary one, where we agreed that people would award each other these little magic tokens based on an arbitrary unit of value.

In a fully automated future, no human labour is happening. That means money cannot exist, because there's no way to earn it (because robots are doing all the jobs) and nothing to spend it on (robots make everything with zero human input).

By definition, money only exists in a world where we have human labour that needs to be recognized and valued; in a fully automated future, that prerequisite no longer exists.

LinkPizza posted...

Even now, people have already lost their jobs and have no money to pay for anything.

Yes, because other people are still working because we don't live in a fully automated world.

Some people are working == not fully automated == money exists
No people are working == fully automated == money cannot exist

This is a very simple relationship.

LinkPizza posted...

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...

That's a nonsense system, though. After all, if the people "in power" need the people without power to have money, that means they have to give it to them, purely so they can take it from them again.

What's the point? If I charge you 300 DKDollars for my services, then mail you 300 DKDollars as a reward for using my services afterwards, those DKDollars have no value because you're not doing anything to earn them. I'm not paying for your labour, just giving you tokens that you can give back to me in some bizarre trading game.

The reason why people in power covet money today is because money represents human labour, which represents power. By having a token representing human labour, you can exchange those tokens to make people do what you want. In a fully automated future, that's no longer true. Money would have no power because people could live their lives completely satisfactorily without any money and, therefore, buying someone's labour is both impossible and pointless (why spend money on a person when a machine can do the same thing cheaper and better?)

LinkPizza posted...

Nah. I don't think they'll ever surpass us.

It would be almost impossible for them not to.

Technology improves at a rate far faster than biology can match. Computers are less than a century old, yet they are already capable of doing most tasks as good or better than humans. That they haven't yet matched us in specific fields in no way suggests that they won't be able to in the future.

This "oh, humans are just naturally better at this sort of thing" logic has been tested before and it has never, ever held water. People assumed for a long time that games like Ichigo and Chess were too complex for a machine to play at the level of a human grandmaster, who can think 30, 40, 50 moves ahead and who can feint out opponents with false strategies. Then AIs were developed that even the greatest masters of the game could not beat.

This is, in essence, simply the next level as that. AI are currently nowhere close to being as good at humans at creative endeavours, but that will change - and likely change rapidly - in the future.

LinkPizza posted...

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...

And some don't. Some do it purely for the joy of creating something. Some do it for fame or recognition, which would still be valid currency in an automated future (hell, that sort of influence would probably be one of the more valuable currencies in a world where money no longer exists).

LinkPizza posted...

The fact that the AI needs something to work off of.

So do humans.

We require input data as well. A baby doesn't just come out of the chute and immediately start churning out amazing works of art. They need data to calibrate their language skills, data to understand how to produce art, data to understand what makes art good. A master artist - whether that's a painter, an author, a dancer, or something else - is a product of *decades* worth of data input, the same way an AI is. Humans don't get to create anything until they have enough baseline data to understand *how* to create something meaningful.

LinkPizza posted...

There has to be a reason for that when putting it everywhere would make more money.

And I've already explained to you why that is - a minimal savings, relative to other expenses, is not going to prompt the sort of swift industry transformation that a much more substantive savings will.

---

LinkPizza posted...

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.

Technology gets *cheaper* the more widespread it is, not more expensive. Take a look at computer prices, or cell phone prices, or TV prices over time - after adjusting for inflation, they drop rapidly after adoption spreads (and it is that continually lowering price that fuels further market penetration).

LinkPizza posted...

It's not their largest expense by a long shot.

Yes, it is. Ask any long haul trucking company and they will tell you that wages are ~60% of their expenses. Fuel tends to be next, followed by maintenance/upkeep/depreciation of resources, then overhead. A truck that can replace a $60k a year driver, while driving over 4x as many hours per year, is a huge incentive.

LinkPizza posted...

It probably will change as it's an estimate.

It's not an estimate; this is hard data based on vehicles already on the road today.

LinkPizza posted...

But how they act will change as more are on the road.

Yes, because there's fewer idiot humans doing dumb things, so the entire system will get safer.

This isn't really helping your case.

And human drivers can signal each other? Not with nearly as much fidelity and completeness as AI. This isn't even arguable.

LinkPizza posted...

Or a pedestrian doing something dumb, causing a car to try to move out of the way, which causes a reaction with all of them, and could cause more of a mess... Because pedestrians will definitely do something dumb...

Cars are already programmed to account for human stupidity. They're trained to anticipate things like cars or pedestrians running red lights/walking against a signal, cutting them off, etc., and they can anticipate and react to such actions far faster than the best human drivers could ever hope to, given that they have both a reaction time that can be measured in fractions of a millisecond, as well as a 360 degree field of view.

LinkPizza posted...

And that's why I'm saying insurance can get very confusing, especially when a chain reaction happens...

Why would it be any different than today, when a multi-car pileup caused by human error happens?

You work out which car(s) screwed up and its their insurance that is responsible. This is not nearly as complicated as you're trying to pretend it is.

LinkPizza posted...

Then show me the better ones, like I out in the rest of the quote you cut out...

Google is just a few clicks away.

Here's one that can fit 80 people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3A4TmETLTc

Here's some others:
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/03/self-driving-bus-begins-technical-trials-in-manchester/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-9wk6QTD1E
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/01/29/self-driving-tech-goes-to-transit-with-new-flyers-autonomous-electric-bus/?sh=6ee674d348db
https://interestingengineering.com/self-driving-vehicles-for-urban-mobility-deployed-in-european-smart-cities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4ekhVSbEI
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/driverless-electric-bus- hits-the-road-in-spanish-city-of-malaga

---

ReturnOfFa posted...

2nd part isn't true

That's what the thing Mead send me said. It said, "Finland made changes to its unemployment law midway through the experience, which impacted both the control group and the basic income group. Called an "activation model," it placed more conditions on accessing unemployment benefits, which decreased the benefits participants received even as they were getting funding from another source."
---

Have any of you read the short story Seventy-Two Letters by Ted Chiang? A lot of this topic has been reminiscent of parts of that story.

darkknight109 posted...

Yes there is.

I've already covered this - money is a measure of human labour. It was invented when we shifted from a barter economy ("I will trade you one goat for a cubit of lumber") into a monetary one, where we agreed that people would award each other these little magic tokens based on an arbitrary unit of value.

In a fully automated future, no human labour is happening. That means money cannot exist, because there's no way to earn it (because robots are doing all the jobs) and nothing to spend it on (robots make everything with zero human input).

By definition, money only exists in a world where we have human labour that needs to be recognized and valued; in a fully automated future, that prerequisite no longer exists.

It doesn't mean money can't exist. It can and will. It's be nearly impossible to get unless someone gives it to us. Plus, we still need money fort things like houses. We won't just be able to go and live in a big mansion for free because we want it. Or have land for free since we want it. We still need something to keep things fair. Or do you think everyone should just have to stay where they are forever? And like I said, the people who use money to gain power will make sure money stays that way. If they know by automating everything, they'll lose money and power, then they won't use their money to automate everything. It's that simple. The people with money and power don't want to lose it, so won't do anything that would bring to the level of us commoners. it would literally make no sense for them to give up that power so willingly... So, there is no proof that money won't exist...

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, because other people are still working because we don't live in a fully automated world.

Some people are working == not fully automated == money exists
No people are working == fully automated == money cannot exist

This is a very simple relationship.

And in the future, there will still be people working. Full automation won't happen for decades. We're decades away. But wen things are mostly automated, we'll still need people working. Even at like 80% automation, we'll need people working. What happens to everybody then? It just sucks to be all the people not working, I guess...

darkknight109 posted...

That's a nonsense system, though. After all, if the people "in power" need the people without power to have money, that means they have to give it to them, purely so they can take it from them again.

What's the point? If I charge you 300 DKDollars for my services, then mail you 300 DKDollars as a reward for using my services afterwards, those DKDollars have no value because you're not doing anything to earn them. I'm not paying for your labour, just giving you tokens that you can give back to me in some bizarre trading game.

The reason why people in power covet money today is because money represents human labour, which represents power. By having a token representing human labour, you can exchange those tokens to make people do what you want. In a fully automated future, that's no longer true. Money would have no power because people could live their lives completely satisfactorily without any money and, therefore, buying someone's labour is both impossible and pointless (why spend money on a person when a machine can do the same thing cheaper and better?)

Yes. And they'll do that. Give you the money that they'll take again. Because it keeps them in control... And the people will need them to survive. When the people need you like that, you have so much power over them... And you'll still have to do something to get those DKDollars. Idk what it is you'll do, but they'll make you do it to keep you listening to them. Maybe that's what the measly $500 will be used for. And the reason is to keep you under their control. It's really quite simple. Those people don't want to lose power over you...

darkknight109 posted...

It would be almost impossible for them not to.

Technology improves at a rate far faster than biology can match. Computers are less than a century old, yet they are already capable of doing most tasks as good or better than humans. That they haven't yet matched us in specific fields in no way suggests that they won't be able to in the future.

This "oh, humans are just naturally better at this sort of thing" logic has been tested before and it has never, ever held water. People assumed for a long time that games like Ichigo and Chess were too complex for a machine to play at the level of a human grandmaster, who can think 30, 40, 50 moves ahead and who can feint out opponents with false strategies. Then AIs were developed that even the greatest masters of the game could not beat.

This is, in essence, simply the next level as that. AI are currently nowhere close to being as good at humans at creative endeavours, but that will change - and likely change rapidly - in the future.

Playing a game isn't hard. Especially at something like chess. Using data that's input, they can guess the mostly likely move. And they can see 100 of moves into the future to see what the best move is. But playing and making a game are very different things. Many people who play games can't make them. And I've even seen where people who make a game aren't the best at playing them. It always made sense that a computer could win at something like that. Cause making something is more than taking data from all other games, and mashing them into one...

darkknight109 posted...

And some don't. Some do it purely for the joy of creating something. Some do it for fame or recognition, which would still be valid currency in an automated future (hell, that sort of influence would probably be one of the more valuable currencies in a world where money no longer exists).

Again, money will exist. But who's to say the game will be available to all? Just because they enjoy creating it doesn't mean everyone would be able to play it. Like how people sometimes just create things for friends. It also depends on what it takes to create it. And even then, it'll probably be a lot less than what we have now. Since it'll probably be a fraction of developers... Which is sad, since I like games...
---

darkknight109 posted...

So do humans.

We require input data as well. A baby doesn't just come out of the chute and immediately start churning out amazing works of art. They need data to calibrate their language skills, data to understand how to produce art, data to understand what makes art good. A master artist - whether that's a painter, an author, a dancer, or something else - is a product of *decades* worth of data input, the same way an AI is. Humans don't get to create anything until they have enough baseline data to understand *how* to create something meaningful.

Humans do. But not the same as AI. Humans can usually make life experiences into art, whether it's a painting, music, or script. The AI stuff I've seen was them using data and basically mashing it together. While some humans do that, the best stuff isn't like that. When humans take from another source, they still change it enough to make it something new. Or similar, but still different and beautiful. Watching an AI write a youtube video was weird because it would try to do the same thing as the youtubers, but was still just kind of mixing the videos together...

darkknight109 posted...

And I've already explained to you why that is - a minimal savings, relative to other expenses, is not going to prompt the sort of swift industry transformation that a much more substantive savings will.

But is terms on money, it still makes more sense to do it now while things aren't needed, and then price raised later. And saving are savings. And even if it's not the most, it should still be a lot. And better to save now than waste money...

darkknight109 posted...

Technology gets *cheaper* the more widespread it is, not more expensive. Take a look at computer prices, or cell phone prices, or TV prices over time - after adjusting for inflation, they drop rapidly after adoption spreads (and it is that continually lowering price that fuels further market penetration).

The older ones will. But the newer one will usually get more expensive. Like phones. Every time a new phone would release, it was more expensive than the last. If you wanted to upgrade, it wasn't as bad, though...

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, it is. Ask any long haul trucking company and they will tell you that wages are ~60% of their expenses. Fuel tends to be next, followed by maintenance/upkeep/depreciation of resources, then overhead. A truck that can replace a $60k a year driver, while driving over 4x as many hours per year, is a huge incentive.

Sorry. I didn't make that clear. I was talking about bus drivers. Can't say much about truckers as that I don't know about. But for the bus company I work at, the drivers are the least expensive thing to worry about.

darkknight109 posted...

It's not an estimate; this is hard data based on vehicles already on the road today.

But until the road is actually filled with them so we can see it, it's an estimate. Maybe a closely accurate one based on data, but an estimate, none-the-less... And we won't know how accurate until they fill he road...

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, because there's fewer idiot humans doing dumb things, so the entire system will get safer.

This isn't really helping your case.

And human drivers can signal each other? Not with nearly as much fidelity and completeness as AI. This isn't even arguable.

They can do things the AI can't. Like reading fcial expressions and body language of peolpe in cars. And pedestrians, as well. And while self driving vehicles can probably read some of the pedestrians body language, it probably has more of a broad sense instead of something more nuanced...

darkknight109 posted...

Cars are already programmed to account for human stupidity. They're trained to anticipate things like cars or pedestrians running red lights/walking against a signal, cutting them off, etc., and they can anticipate and react to such actions far faster than the best human drivers could ever hope to, given that they have both a reaction time that can be measured in fractions of a millisecond, as well as a 360 degree field of view.

What I am saying is in certain cases, it could end up causing some weird chain reactions where all of the cars end up moving, which could cause and even bigger mess another way. Where in the case on human drivers, it might just be one car hitting another since the other won't all move. It's kind of hard to describe...
---

darkknight109 posted...

Why would it be any different than today, when a multi-car pileup caused by human error happens?

You work out which car(s) screwed up and its their insurance that is responsible. This is not nearly as complicated as you're trying to pretend it is.

Because it depends on if the person who started it is still there or not. Because in a larger chain reaction, the first car might not even stay. It might not even know it caused it. Which then means it's shifts blame. Happened to my brother. In his case, it was a car that hit him, and made my brother hit another car. Even though the lady who's car was hit sided with my brother, he got the blame. Meaning if a self-driving car causes chain reaction to all the others one and causes a big accident, but one that doesn't have the first half of the cars in it and they drive off after a near miss (on their part), it can ended up shifting the blame. But it really shouldn't...

darkknight109 posted...

Google is just a few clicks away.

Here's one that can fit 80 people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3A4TmETLTc

Here's some others:
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/03/self-driving-bus-begins-technical-trials-in-manchester/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-9wk6QTD1E
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/01/29/self-driving-tech-goes-to-transit-with-new-flyers-autonomous-electric-bus/?sh=6ee674d348db
https://interestingengineering.com/self-driving-vehicles-for-urban-mobility-deployed-in-european-smart-cities
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci4ekhVSbEI
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/25/driverless-electric-bus- hits-the-road-in-spanish-city-of-malaga

- For the first video, not only did I not see or hear anything about passengers with wheelchairs, but I can't find the price. When I searched it, I could only find the human driven one. And now looking at it, I'm not even sure that's the price for the Volvo one... And according to the video, it still has the driver... Which is what I said in the other topic however long ago that was. I said the driver would still need to be on the bus, and you kept saying they wouldn't.
- For the first link, I don't know if that's the price of not, but if it is, we have nowhere near that much. .We get less than 16% of that for a bus a year. If it's not the price of the bus, how much is that one. Also like the first one (I think), they've just started talking about depot training. Nothing about road training... And till nothing about wheelchair passengers...
- For the second video, it's one of the small ones that wouldn't work for where I am... And as far I as I tell, it look like it's not made for wheelchairs. And wouldn't have a way to secure people in wheelchairs...
- For the second link, It showed the wheelchair ramp, which is closer to what I wanted. But not how they would be secured without a driver like you said in (previous topic)...
- For the third link, this one seems to be mentioning the small ones again. And they are the ones that a re apparently not wheelchair compatible... And it mentioned that you apparently need the app. Which will suck for the people without a phone, I guess...
- For the third video, still doesn't show anything about people in wheelchairs. And nothing new except a new location...
- For the fourth link, it actually brought up something. The lights apparently need sensors, too... And it seems like these are all in expensive areas, too. Which doesn't describe my area at all... People will most likely not be booking things, and just at the station and stops...

When I said to show me a bus that had all those things, I meant all of them. And all of them together. And without a driver, since that's how you said it would be in that other topic, IIRC. But I don't think any of them mentioned people in wheelchairs (the fourth did show a ramp in the video, but that's it). And even then, it doesn't show how they would be secured if there was no driver... I don't think I could find the prices of the ones I looked up, either. I kept finding prices for the ones with drivers. I put the name on the ones I knew in exactly as that guy said it, but it didn't lead me to what I wanted... And most of them seem to be level 4. And that's not enough for our station to make the change. Especially since the bus are actually pretty accident free, tbh. The accidents, if any, are normally on the vans. Which can go to anything past level 4 because like most of the customers are in a wheelchair, many are blind and usually need helps with bags, and many need someone to watch them for many reasons... Also, for both buses and vans, people will pee, poop, and vomit. And that needs to be handled pretty quickly. Or sometimes, some people need to be kicked off the bus... Not only that, but while we have a parent company who could probably afford the buses, we don't get money from them. And even if they wanted to fund us, we'd be the last on the list. And probably wouldn't even hear about that funding for a decade. But either way, we get our money from the city. Which is why the bus station is pretty poor. And why they can usually only afford part of a bus every year. And not even every year since we also have to do stuff for vans... Vans are cheaper, but still pretty expensive. And they've been buying a bunch of new vans. And been saving for new buses. All driven by drivers... Though, I've mentioned that before... Also, not sure if it mentions this. While it can see all around them, does it also see if passengers are trying to flag it down to get on it they were like a few seconds late?
---

Since part of this conversation has touched on A.I. produced art, I think this is probably worth sharing. It's come along a lot farther than most people realize and it's only going to improve. This is an A.I. created song based on Nirvana:

https://youtu.be/L9yTuO7d1rk

JigsawTDC posted...

Since part of this conversation has touched on A.I. produced art, I think this is probably worth sharing. It's come along a lot farther than most people realize and it's only going to improve. This is an A.I. created song based on Nirvana:

https://youtu.be/L9yTuO7d1rk

dang its not bad

---

Mead posted...

dang its not bad

They've got A.I. songs in the style of Amy Winehouse, The Doors, and Jimi Hendrix too. Here's the site for the project:
https://losttapesofthe27club.com/

LinkPizza posted...

It doesn't mean money can't exist. It can and will.

I will say this as many times as I have to.

Money is a measure of human labour.

No human labour = no money.
Fully automated future = no human labour.

We may have some other currency, but it won't be money in the conventional sense because money only makes sense in a world where widespread human labour is a thing.

LinkPizza posted...

And in the future, there will still be people working. Full automation won't happen for decades.

...first you demand to talk about the fully automated future, and then when I explain to you how a fully automated future will work, you immediately veer back into talking about the interim period when things aren't fully automated. Please pick one and stick with it.

LinkPizza posted...

Yes. And they'll do that. Give you the money that they'll take again. Because it keeps them in control...

Power from money is ultimately derived from human labour, because money is an abstract expression of human labour. In a fully automated future, using money to try to control a populace isn't going to work, because you cannot command their labour with a currency that isn't founded on it. You can control people in other ways - through land access, for instance - but not through a bogus currency.

LinkPizza posted...

Playing a game isn't hard. Especially at something like chess.

I'd like to see you go a few rounds against Gary Kasparov if that's your opinion.

Regardless, you're missing the point. 25 years ago, people insisted that AI simply weren't capable of something as advanced as strategizing and game theory. And, indeed, at the time they weren't - Kasparov lost to Deep Blue just once in their six matches in 1996; when they had a rematch in 1997, Deep Blue won two matches to one (with the other three being draws). Today you can get a chess AI on your phone that's more powerful than Deep Blue.

In Go, the difference was even more pronounced. Even up to six years ago, no computer program had ever beaten a top Go player without a handicap (October 2015 was the first time a championship-level player was beaten by an AI, with Fan Hui getting swept by Google's AlphaGo AI in a five game series). Since then, the AlphaGo program - which was only trained by playing against itself - has beaten the top-ranked player in the world at the time - Ke Jie - in 89 of 100 games.

And AI in both games had to overcome some pretty historic and fundamental issues regarding move prediction and table tactics that could not be overcome by simply "brute forcing" a solution.

The creative process behind making a game is no different. This is an area where AI will eventually be able to reach - and probably surpass - human capability. We're not there yet and we won't be for a long time, but it will come.

LinkPizza posted...

Again, money will exist.

You're entire original argument was that people won't make art or games if they don't get paid; now you're saying that money exists and they will get paid, which contradicts your original argument.

Which one are you sticking with? Either you were wrong then or you're wrong now.

LinkPizza posted...

Humans do. But not the same as AI. Humans can usually make life experiences into art, whether it's a painting, music, or script. The AI stuff I've seen was them using data and basically mashing it together.

Humans make art exactly the same as AI, it's just that human algorithms are currently more advanced than AI equivalents.

Jigsaw was kind enough to post an example of AI-generated music, something that is almost indistinguishable from the human-generated version. Not all AI products are those crude "mash-ups" that you've probably seen from AI that's simple enough to be released for people's idle amusement on the internet.

Here's some others:
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAfLCTRuh7U

LinkPizza posted...

But is terms on money, it still makes more sense to do it now while things aren't needed, and then price raised later.

Not necessarily, for reasons I previously explained.

Perhaps they don't want to go through the research and downtime of upgrading. Perhaps they want to wait for the tech to get cheaper, because they believe that tech improvements and efficiencies will exceed the depreciation of purchased assets. Or maybe the CEO just didn't feel like bothering because the savings weren't significant enough for him to care.

CEOs aren't robots (yet), so they are not guaranteed to make the most logical move at every single prompt.

---

LinkPizza posted...

The older ones will. But the newer one will usually get more expensive.

Again, this is not historically accurate. Computers, TVs, cell phones, printers, scanners, and other such tech become cheaper as time goes on, not more expensive.

LinkPizza posted...

They can do things the AI can't. Like reading fcial expressions and body language of peolpe in cars. And pedestrians, as well.

AI can literally do all of the things you just claimed it couldn't do and can do so faster and more accurately than a human can.

And, for what it's worth, the number of accidents that would be averted by the ability to accurately read someone's facial expression, of all things, is probably less than one a decade.

LinkPizza posted...

What I am saying is in certain cases, it could end up causing some weird chain reactions where all of the cars end up moving, which could cause and even bigger mess another way. Where in the case on human drivers, it might just be one car hitting another since the other won't all move. It's kind of hard to describe...

"It's kind of hard to describe" because you're making up a problem that doesn't exist, then expecting me to answer for it.

No, your hypothetical has no basis in reality. If you want me to believe otherwise, show some proof.

LinkPizza posted...

Because it depends on if the person who started it is still there or not. Because in a larger chain reaction, the first car might not even stay. It might not even know it caused it. Which then means it's shifts blame. Happened to my brother.

Is your brother an AI? Because if not, you've just admitted that this problem isn't a new one and, as such, is not an issue with AI.

An AI-caused crash is just as easy to sort through as a human-caused one. Technically it's easier, because the AI cars has sensors and logs and camera files you can pore through to work out who was actually at fault, which are features humans don't have.

LinkPizza posted...

When I said to show me a bus that had all those things, I meant all of them. And all of them together. And without a driver, since that's how you said it would be in that other topic, IIRC.

This is some serious goalpost moving. You're now asking me to come up with a comprehensive list of a bunch of features you haven't specified and also asking me to answer for a different random topic that you're referencing that I don't even know if I was involved with and you haven't linked to. No, I'm not doing that.

And I don't need to. Self-driving buses are being implemented in cities. That is unarguable fact. Any quibble you come up with - be it price, handicap accessibility, or some other factor - has already been considered and dealt with; if it hadn't, these buses wouldn't be getting implemented, because cash-strapped city governments are not going to put in transit programs that are *more* expensive and have no tangible benefits. The very fact that self-driving buses are already being rolled out is proof that they work and are cost-effective. And that transition is only going to go one way: forward.

---

Link is just a stubborn old man yelling at those dang robots to get off his lawn.

---

darkknight109 posted...

I will say this as many times as I have to.

Money is a measure of human labour.

No human labour = no money.
Fully automated future = no human labour.

We may have some other currency, but it won't be money in the conventional sense because money only makes sense in a world where widespread human labour is a thing.

Money can and will exist. There will still be tons of human labor when things are mostly automated. Like the people working to build the automation. Before automation can build automation, people will build it. And people will have to build the automation that build automation that builds automation. And the materials will still cost most. Just because automation can make anything doesn't mean it's makes it out of nothing. It needs the materials to make whatever. And that will still cost money. Plus, the peolpe who pay for the automation that you want won't pay for it for no reason. They'll want something out of it, as well... There's no way money is going anywhere anytime soon. So far, all automation cost money, and usually a good amount of it, as well. And most is used to make money...

darkknight109 posted...

...first you demand to talk about the fully automated future, and then when I explain to you how a fully automated future will work, you immediately veer back into talking about the interim period when things aren't fully automated. Please pick one and stick with it.

Just because I ask you questions about a fully automated future doesn't mean I think it'll work. I think it'll fail big time. And even if they try to get it work, it won't be for a very long time. There are tons of things they have to work out with automation. And so many jobs that they automations would have to be built specifically for everything. And like I said earlier, people will be building pretty much everything for a while. If they ever tried a fully automated system, it wouldn't be for decades. But I still don't think it would actually work out...

darkknight109 posted...

Power from money is ultimately derived from human labour, because money is an abstract expression of human labour. In a fully automated future, using money to try to control a populace isn't going to work, because you cannot command their labour with a currency that isn't founded on it. You can control people in other ways - through land access, for instance - but not through a bogus currency.

Except people will still need money. Like I said in earlier, people will still need money for certain things. One of the main things being land. You don't just get land for free. Who's to say how much land each person gets? And what if you want to move? It wouldn't be fair and people were just stuck where they were after everything was done. And there would be riots if some people were stuck in one apartment bedrooms with no way out, while other's had huge mansions that they don't have to pay for anymore... And in that case, the currency isn't bogus, anymore. It's just much harder to earn it...

darkknight109 posted...

I'd like to see you go a few rounds against Gary Kasparov if that's your opinion.

Regardless, you're missing the point. 25 years ago, people insisted that AI simply weren't capable of something as advanced as strategizing and game theory. And, indeed, at the time they weren't - Kasparov lost to Deep Blue just once in their six matches in 1996; when they had a rematch in 1997, Deep Blue won two matches to one (with the other three being draws). Today you can get a chess AI on your phone that's more powerful than Deep Blue.

In Go, the difference was even more pronounced. Even up to six years ago, no computer program had ever beaten a top Go player without a handicap (October 2015 was the first time a championship-level player was beaten by an AI, with Fan Hui getting swept by Google's AlphaGo AI in a five game series). Since then, the AlphaGo program - which was only trained by playing against itself - has beaten the top-ranked player in the world at the time - Ke Jie - in 89 of 100 games.

And AI in both games had to overcome some pretty historic and fundamental issues regarding move prediction and table tactics that could not be overcome by simply "brute forcing" a solution.

The creative process behind making a game is no different. This is an area where AI will eventually be able to reach - and probably surpass - human capability. We're not there yet and we won't be for a long time, but it will come.

I'm talking about for the computer, obviously. Not me. Nice try at taking what I said out of context by not posting the whole quote, though. The quote with the next couple of sentences said, "Playing a game isn't hard. Especially at something like chess. Using data that's input, they can guess the mostly likely move. And they can see 100 of moves into the future to see what the best move is." It should be obvious I was talking about the computer playing... And the reason it gets better is because it's taking that data and using it. It uses that data to move pieces in a certain way. A way that's most likely already been done before, as well... But that's not how you always make games. Games shouldn't be based on data since we want something new from it. Not the same thing as 10 others games mixed together (not all the time, at least)... That's why I don't think they'll surpass humans in certain things...

darkknight109 posted...

You're entire original argument was that people won't make art or games if they don't get paid; now you're saying that money exists and they will get paid, which contradicts your original argument.

Which one are you sticking with? Either you were wrong then or you're wrong now.

No. I said that people would WANT to get paid if they made stuff. And all you quoted was, "money will exist" which is what I've been saying this whole time. So what are you talking about? If you talking about creating stuff for friends, that's not for everybody. Creating stuff for friends is different. For example, I'll cook for friends and family, but if I cook for random strangers, I'd probably want some kind of compensation. Creating something for friends to enjoy isn't the same of creating something for everyone to enjoy...
---

darkknight109 posted...

Humans make art exactly the same as AI, it's just that human algorithms are currently more advanced than AI equivalents.

Jigsaw was kind enough to post an example of AI-generated music, something that is almost indistinguishable from the human-generated version. Not all AI products are those crude "mash-ups" that you've probably seen from AI that's simple enough to be released for people's idle amusement on the internet.

Here's some others:
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAfLCTRuh7U (click to expand)

I don't enough about music to say what it is. My boyfriend does, but I'm not with him now. He knows a lot about music, and piano is his specialty. So, I only have heard the ones where people have explained how they made it...

darkknight109 posted...

Not necessarily, for reasons I previously explained.

Perhaps they don't want to go through the research and downtime of upgrading. Perhaps they want to wait for the tech to get cheaper, because they believe that tech improvements and efficiencies will exceed the depreciation of purchased assets. Or maybe the CEO just didn't feel like bothering because the savings weren't significant enough for him to care.

CEOs aren't robots (yet), so they are not guaranteed to make the most logical move at every single prompt.

If they only had like a couple registers, that would make sense. But there shouldn't be any downtime. They'd be working in the area where the cashiers use to be. Some where like Wal-Mart where you have 20 registers needing people to work, but only having 2-3 people working them means you can easier close off just that section to work. And you can do it multiple times. And they probably wouldn't need to do much research as 1, people do that for them. And 2, they apparently already have some. So, they do like them to some degree... Unless they really hate them and that's why some stores don't have them, and many only have a few of them...

darkknight109 posted...

Again, this is not historically accurate. Computers, TVs, cell phones, printers, scanners, and other such tech become cheaper as time goes on, not more expensive.

Well, that's not true at all. When I got my iphone 6, it wasn't $1000 like the new iphones are. The smartphones I see are always getting more expensive than the previous ones. Game consoles, too... As they make better headsets for gaming, those also seem to get more expensive. Most of the newer stuff is better, but also more expensive. Because the parts are probably more expensive, as well... And if they have any shortages, they probably don't help much, either...

darkknight109 posted...

AI can literally do all of the things you just claimed it couldn't do and can do so faster and more accurately than a human can.

And, for what it's worth, the number of accidents that would be averted by the ability to accurately read someone's facial expression, of all things, is probably less than one a decade.

I'm 100% sure its not that low. And I think a human can read facial expression better than the car for now. Maybe later than can. But for now, humans would do that better, as I think the car is focusing on other things around it... Like just sensing any obstacles instead of trying to read said obstacle's face...

darkknight109 posted...

"It's kind of hard to describe" because you're making up a problem that doesn't exist, then expecting me to answer for it.

No, your hypothetical has no basis in reality. If you want me to believe otherwise, show some proof.

No. It exist. And it's more likely to happen to AI since they are talking to each other, which would be an easy way to make a chain reaction... I'd be able to describe if I could draw anything other than animal faces and a boy made from the word boy. Or if I had figurines. Maybe I'll try to make and upload a video of it.

darkknight109 posted...

Is your brother an AI? Because if not, you've just admitted that this problem isn't a new one and, as such, is not an issue with AI.

An AI-caused crash is just as easy to sort through as a human-caused one. Technically it's easier, because the AI cars has sensors and logs and camera files you can pore through to work out who was actually at fault, which are features humans don't have.

The problem is it could still happen with an AI when the unexpected happens. And if the AI doesn't know it caused it accident because it was busy avoiding another accident, it could end up leaving the scene for somebody else self-driving car to take the blame... And even then, it becomes a pain to try to get certain people to take the blame. Just like human, they'll pass the blame around. It would suck if you get in trouble because of a decision your self-driving car made on it's own...
---

darkknight109 posted...

This is some serious goalpost moving. You're now asking me to come up with a comprehensive list of a bunch of features you haven't specified and also asking me to answer for a different random topic that you're referencing that I don't even know if I was involved with and you haven't linked to. No, I'm not doing that.

And I don't need to. Self-driving buses are being implemented in cities. That is unarguable fact. Any quibble you come up with - be it price, handicap accessibility, or some other factor - has already been considered and dealt with; if it hadn't, these buses wouldn't be getting implemented, because cash-strapped city governments are not going to put in transit programs that are *more* expensive and have no tangible benefits. The very fact that self-driving buses are already being rolled out is proof that they work and are cost-effective. And that transition is only going to go one way: forward.

No. It's not. Here's what I asked for: "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."
And if you remember our last conversation in the old topic, one of things I was adamant about was we would still have the bus drivers because someone had to secure the wheelchairs. And you kept saying they wouldn't have to. Nor did I see any prices. I didn't move the goalpost. You just missed the goal. And you were the one involved. I remember 100% it was you. No doubt in my mind. It was you. You act like talking about the "price, handicap accessibility, or some other factor" aren't important. But those are some of the most important things. Nobody's going to buy a self-driving bus if it doesn't fit what they want or need. And if people dodge questions like that, then the bus probably isn't worth buying... And apparently not. Because you still haven't shown me a bus that I asked for with all the features I mentioned. So it obviously has not been dealt with if I can't see an example with the stuff I asked for... Because we would need something like that (and most likely shorter, but that can always be done) for our bus station. Though, since we aren't getting them anytime soon (like in the next decade), I guess it won't matter much...

Sarcasthma posted...

Link is just a stubborn old man yelling at those dang robots to get off his lawn.

Well, they should get off my lawn, then!
---

LinkPizza posted...

There will still be tons of human labor when things are mostly automated.

We're not talking about when things are "mostly automated"; we're talking about when things are fully automated.

Again, you keep bouncing back and forth between these two on the exact same point; pick one and stick with it.

LinkPizza posted...

And so many jobs that they automations would have to be built specifically for everything.

No, actually, they don't.

Learning robots are a thing that exists right now. These are robots that aren't programmed for anything in particular, but can watch a human (or other robot) performing a task and mimic that task, in essence teaching themselves how to perform any given job you need them for. This can be cooking food, putting groceries away and, hypothetically, strapping wheelchairs into bus seats.

Right now this technology is still in its infancy, but it's a proof the concept works. The days of needing to specifically design a robot for one and only one task are rapidly ending; modern neural networks and learning AI are capable of learning any task you need them to perform.

LinkPizza posted...

Except people will still need money. Like I said in earlier, people will still need money for certain things. One of the main things being land. You don't just get land for free. Who's to say how much land each person gets? And what if you want to move?

And this is one of the open questions that will need to be solved before full - or even majority - automation is achieved.

Because money *is* going to go away in that future. There's no way around it. Money and commerce can't exist without human labour, because how do we pay someone if there's no jobs for them to do because robots do it all better and more effectively than humans can?

But there are still limited goods, land being an excellent example. So there will still be some form of exchange, but we need to work out what form that will take in order for it to be fair and reasonable.

LinkPizza posted...

And the reason it gets better is because it's taking that data and using it. It uses that data to move pieces in a certain way. A way that's most likely already been done before, as well...

Not the case, actually - some of the first chess computer AI actually determined that situations that grandmasters thought were automatic losses could actually be played out to a draw, or even a victory.

Also, since you're talking about "moving pieces", I'm guessing you're not familiar with how Go works, because there's no pieces to move. You put stones wherever you like on the board. Being able to understand the game and predict your opponent's strategy (and not fall for bluffs or feints) is critical and something that can't just be brute-forced by an AI, which is what I mentioned earlier. Yet the AI has managed to surpass that issue.

LinkPizza posted...

Games shouldn't be based on data since we want something new from it. Not the same thing as 10 others games mixed together (not all the time, at least)...

Except, games aren't "something new" - that's an illusion. They are the result of the data gathered by the biological computers that are our brains being permuted and combined into new combinations, the exact way an AI does. The only difference is the scope and scale of the data gathered, something that AI will be able to handle one day.

LinkPizza posted...

No. I said that people would WANT to get paid if they made stuff. And all you quoted was, "money will exist" which is what I've been saying this whole time. So what are you talking about?

I feel like you've completely forgotten what you were originally arguing.

Your original point was that in a fully automated world without money, people wouldn't make games or art because no one wants to do that unless they're getting paid. I pointed out that people *already* make games and art and distribute it for free today, so they would be willing to do it in a future without money as well. Then you decided to argue that money will still exist in the future.

Well, if that's your argument, then what were you complaining about to begin with? Your entire initial argument is that people don't make art/games if they don't get paid so a moneyless future is bad; now you're arguing that there will be money in the future, but that means people making art/games will still be paid, invalidating your original argument.

You've basically short-circuited your own argument at this point. Please sort it out and get back to me once you've worked out what it is you're actually trying to put forward.

LinkPizza posted...

I don't enough about music to say what it is.

What do you mean you don't know "what it is"? "It" is music (or pictures, in the case of the first link) - there's not really any more to it than that.

---

LinkPizza posted...

But there shouldn't be any downtime.

For those places with only a few registers, there would have to be.

LinkPizza posted...

And they probably wouldn't need to do much research as 1, people do that for them.

Not all stores are big enough to have a tech R&D division, and even the ones that do likely have competing priorities for their time. If their overall savings are not projected to be large, those man-hours are probably going to be assigned elsewhere.

LinkPizza posted...

Well, that's not true at all. When I got my iphone 6, it wasn't $1000 like the new iphones are. The smartphones I see are always getting more expensive than the previous ones. Game consoles, too... As they make better headsets for gaming, those also seem to get more expensive. Most of the newer stuff is better, but also more expensive. Because the parts are probably more expensive, as well... And if they have any shortages, they probably don't help much, either...

Well first off, you're not adjusting for inflation and secondly, you're restricting yourself to the top-end models.

I can get a brand-new smart phone today for $90; even without adjusting for inflation, there were no smart phones available that cheap 15 years ago. Yes, if you insist on having the newest, flashiest model, you're not necessarily going to see price savings, but if you're willing to go with something that's not top-of-the-line, lower costs become available the further into a product's development you go.

LinkPizza posted...

But for now, humans would do that better, as I think the car is focusing on other things around it... Like just sensing any obstacles instead of trying to read said obstacle's face...

You think wrong because you're applying human traits to a machine.

Robots don't "focus" on anything; they simply take in data from all around them. Having them read a human's face and identify potential problems (like them talking on a phone or nodding off) doesn't take any more effort from them than driving normally. Unlike humans, who have to focus their attention on specific tasks, AI are true multi-taskers, able to do as many different simultaneous tasks as they need to with no drop in effectiveness.

LinkPizza posted...

No. It exist.

Then prove it - not with your own theory, but with actual data and sources. I'm not going to try and answer for a hypothetical that, by your own admission, you can't even describe.

---

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is it could still happen with an AI when the unexpected happens. And if the AI doesn't know it caused it accident because it was busy avoiding another accident, it could end up leaving the scene for somebody else self-driving car to take the blame...

Leaving the scene of an accident is illegal. If a human does not stop the AI from doing so with a manual override, they would be committing a crime.

And, again, this is not an AI problem. Humans can and do leave the scene of accidents all the time. However, the self-driving cars all have cameras that can be turned over to law enforcement to identify any vehicles that left the scene.

Again, you're citing a situation where an AI performs better than a human, yet somehow trying to use that to criticize the AI.

LinkPizza posted...

And if you remember our last conversation in the old topic

No, I don't remember our conversation in the old topic because I don't even know what topic you're referring to. Either link to it if it still exists or please stop referencing it, because you're asking me to answer for posts where I have no idea what either of us may or may not have said.

LinkPizza posted...

Nobody's going to buy a self-driving bus if it doesn't fit what they want or need.

You're right, nobody would buy a self-driving bus if it doesn't fit what they want or need.

Here's another fact: cities are buying self-driving buses.

What does that tell you?

You're making this way harder than it needs to be at this point.

---

darkknight109 posted...

We're not talking about when things are "mostly automated"; we're talking about when things are fully automated.

Again, you keep bouncing back and forth between these two on the exact same point; pick one and stick with it.

Thats at least another few decades at the very soonest. And that if it ever even gets there. Because I dont think it will ever be fully automated. And what two points am I jumping between

darkknight109 posted...

No, actually, they don't.

Learning robots are a thing that exists right now. These are robots that aren't programmed for anything in particular, but can watch a human (or other robot) performing a task and mimic that task, in essence teaching themselves how to perform any given job you need them for. This can be cooking food, putting groceries away and, hypothetically, strapping wheelchairs into bus seats.

Right now this technology is still in its infancy, but it's a proof the concept works. The days of needing to specifically design a robot for one and only one task are rapidly ending; modern neural networks and learning AI are capable of learning any task you need them to perform.

Yes. They actually do. The same program for driving a self-driving car isnt the same for self-checkout. And neither are the same for diagnosing patients. And being built for something isnt just the program, but the actual machine itself. Anything dealing with plumbing would have to be water proof, where something dealing with electric has to be shock proof. The tech is different for each. Learning isnt the only thing they need. And they would probably install basic programming for whatever specialty they want it to know. It makes no sense to use a blank slate robot to learn everything if there are basic things it should and could know. Nor does on type of robot fit every type of job. For example, the type of robot you describe sounds like a housekeeping robot. But Im not sure Id want it to do some advanced plumbing if its not built for that (wrong size, not waterproof, only has basic plumbing knowledge, etc.)

As for the bus seats, we still dont have anything like that, though. And thats still hypothetically moving someone to the spot and strapping them in. But nothing like that is out there yet. And who knows if it will be anytime soon. Because even if they build robots, Im pretty sure thats not going to be high on their list Also, before we have robots performing multiple tasks, we should probably start at one. Since those arent even commonplace yet

Theres also the whole watching the automations thing. I feel people would eventually have to. Automations will eventually degrade over time. And even if you have automation watch automation for degrading, those could also degrade. Eventually, you have a never ending line of automation watching automation, and possibly all degrading or whatever Plus, the required materials. I cant say how much it will take. But it would probably be a lot

darkknight109 posted...

And this is one of the open questions that will need to be solved before full - or even majority - automation is achieved.

Because money *is* going to go away in that future. There's no way around it. Money and commerce can't exist without human labour, because how do we pay someone if there's no jobs for them to do because robots do it all better and more effectively than humans can?

But there are still limited goods, land being an excellent example. So there will still be some form of exchange, but we need to work out what form that will take in order for it to be fair and reasonable.

You would still need a bartering system. The thing is, we already have one in place: money Why get rid of the bartering system we already have to make another. IF everything is going to be free (it wont), then theres nothing you could trade for land. Thats why they will probably keep money around. Theres absolutely no proof that money is going away. Theres no proof its staying, either. But it staying makes way more sense than it just going away. And there will still be human labor for so long. The problem is, even if we reach a point where most things were automated, money will be around. And barely anyone would have it. And the ones that do probably wont have much And then many people probably wont trust robots. Especially if they have the ability to be hacked Which they probably can be (It would probably be a safety function, tbh) And materials will cost money, too. To make whatever you want would still require you to have the materials to do so. And with a limited supply on certain things, they will probably also cost money Money is probably going to stay around forever

darkknight109 posted...

Not the case, actually - some of the first chess computer AI actually determined that situations that grandmasters thought were automatic losses could actually be played out to a draw, or even a victory.

Also, since you're talking about "moving pieces", I'm guessing you're not familiar with how Go works, because there's no pieces to move. You put stones wherever you like on the board. Being able to understand the game and predict your opponent's strategy (and not fall for bluffs or feints) is critical and something that can't just be brute-forced by an AI, which is what I mentioned earlier. Yet the AI has managed to surpass that issue.

They probably got data from more than Grandmasters, though. Because they still had to know the basics. And because they are a computer, can usually tell how people will move. I know people in real life who werent good at chess who lost very fast because they didnt know how to play. I mean, there are ways to make two bad moves to be put in a spot where check mate will happen or something. Fools Mate, I think. But they would probably have many different ways of playing programed. And by using a move that would normally result in a lost, can actually help them to move their opponents pieces in the way they want. Like manipulation. And I know nothing about Go. There is a person here who plays, but Ive never taken an interest in it. And an AI could easily predict an opponents move. Since I believe there is still a limited amount of moves one could make. And they could probably play out multiple scenarios. Also by doing something thats been done before. While both games probably have many moves to make, they still are limited to a certain amount. And as they make more moves, the different amount they can make gets smaller and smaller
---

darkknight109 posted...

Except, games aren't "something new" - that's an illusion. They are the result of the data gathered by the biological computers that are our brains being permuted and combined into new combinations, the exact way an AI does. The only difference is the scope and scale of the data gathered, something that AI will be able to handle one day.

Not all of them are. Some are sequels, or very similar to each other. Or a different version of certain things. Though, many do have things that make their game unique from others. Whether its weapons, characters, etc.. There are new series that come out, though, as well With how much stuff the world has done up to this point, unique is harder to find

That being said, something I do like about human developed games are certain glitches that get left in. Or ways to become overpowered when it shouldnt be possible. Those can be pretty funny. I feel AI wouldnt make those mistakes

darkknight109 posted...

I feel like you've completely forgotten what you were originally arguing.

Your original point was that in a fully automated world without money, people wouldn't make games or art because no one wants to do that unless they're getting paid. I pointed out that people *already* make games and art and distribute it for free today, so they would be willing to do it in a future without money as well. Then you decided to argue that money will still exist in the future.

Well, if that's your argument, then what were you complaining about to begin with? Your entire initial argument is that people don't make art/games if they don't get paid so a moneyless future is bad; now you're arguing that there will be money in the future, but that means people making art/games will still be paid, invalidating your original argument.

You've basically short-circuited your own argument at this point. Please sort it out and get back to me once you've worked out what it is you're actually trying to put forward.

No one wants to do things without compensation. Thats what I believe. But from the very beginning, Ive always said that there will still be money. From the beginning. But I said in a world that was fully automated, most people wouldnt make games. At least, not for the world. The ones that do will probably end up taking a long time as they most likely would be doing it on their own. And we have a few people on this site that are developing games. And they do seem like they take a lot of time, even with a small team. And most projects will probably be single person. And many may not ever finish. The points I make dont contradict each other because I know well still have money. My point was in a fully automatic world (which I dont believe will happen), people wouldnt want to make things without compensation Weve literally been talking about that for a while now. So I believe in both of those things. Neither are invalidated. Both still stand. I believe there will still be money. But in a world where there wasnt money, I dont believe many, if any, people would do stuff without compensation

darkknight109 posted...

What do you mean you don't know "what it is"? "It" is music (or pictures, in the case of the first link) - there's not really any more to it than that.

Sorry. I should have said I dont know enough about music to say anything about it. When Ive watched reviews on music made them online, it would usually have somebody who knows more about music that was talking about it

darkknight109 posted...

For those places with only a few registers, there would have to be.

Sure. For those places. For places like Wal-Mart and Target that have rows of them, theyd be fine. Technically, with places with more than two registers, it should be fine as they usually replace two regular registers with 4 they would just have to cover the area where the two registers were

darkknight109 posted...

Not all stores are big enough to have a tech R&D division, and even the ones that do likely have competing priorities for their time. If their overall savings are not projected to be large, those man-hours are probably going to be assigned elsewhere.

Probably not all stores. But many are under a parent company who might have done the research for them. Like while the bus stations parent company wont give up money, they do send training videos. And send information back and forth between them

darkknight109 posted...

Well first off, you're not adjusting for inflation and secondly, you're restricting yourself to the top-end models.

I can get a brand-new smart phone today for $90; even without adjusting for inflation, there were no smart phones available that cheap 15 years ago. Yes, if you insist on having the newest, flashiest model, you're not necessarily going to see price savings, but if you're willing to go with something that's not top-of-the-line, lower costs become available the further into a product's development you go.

Yeah. I can get a brand new iPhone 6 for $100. But thats an older model. When the newer models first come out, they were always more. I remember when the 7 came out, and it cost much more than my 6. And I had the 128GB version. And every new phone starts off pretty high, though. As time goes by (and newer versions come out), they get cheaper

If you go with something cheaper and older, itll be less. But why would they install the older model that will be outdated in stores. They want the newest model thats better, and probably still gets most parts made for it. Eventually, the older models will most likely break easier, need more maintenance, and parts become scarce earlier

darkknight109 posted...

You think wrong because you're applying human traits to a machine.

Robots don't "focus" on anything; they simply take in data from all around them. Having them read a human's face and identify potential problems (like them talking on a phone or nodding off) doesn't take any more effort from them than driving normally. Unlike humans, who have to focus their attention on specific tasks, AI are true multi-taskers, able to do as many different simultaneous tasks as they need to with no drop in effectiveness.

Except I dont think theyll recognize all that all the time. I think they are mostly sensing the objects around to see when to stop or steer away. But I dont see them seeing a person looking a little sleepy and then honking to give them a shock to wake up, and maybe pull over. And thats if it notices them nodding off. Because it could be someone who looks awake, but is sleep. Or they could think someone who head is all the way back on the headrest is asleep, when they just sit like that
---

darkknight109 posted...

Then prove it - not with your own theory, but with actual data and sources. I'm not going to try and answer for a hypothetical that, by your own admission, you can't even describe.

I cant because the cars arent common on the road yet. That much should be obvious. Compared to human drivers, the self-driving cars are barely on the road. The theory is very possible, though. Especially with how they explained the car works. And especially if they communicate with each other. Just because it hasnt happened yet doesnt mean it wont. We just have to wait a few decades for self-driving cars to be common on the road

darkknight109 posted...

Leaving the scene of an accident is illegal. If a human does not stop the AI from doing so with a manual override, they would be committing a crime.

And, again, this is not an AI problem. Humans can and do leave the scene of accidents all the time. However, the self-driving cars all have cameras that can be turned over to law enforcement to identify any vehicles that left the scene.

Again, you're citing a situation where an AI performs better than a human, yet somehow trying to use that to criticize the AI.

Yes. It is. But the accident may not happen immediately after they steer to avoid. It could have a couple of seconds before it happens. And because the car that caused it wasnt hit, it may not know that it was the car that caused the accident. The human may not be paying attention. Or was so focus on what almost happened that he doesnt know (or doesnt know that (s)he caused) an accident somewhere else. It happens fast, but it might not know if its far away enough. Well, it might know about the accident, but not that it caused it. Its also a problem if a human was the one that was hit by a self-driving car that was trying to avoid getting hit. Because it could be a mix of humans and self-driving vehicles on the road together. And humans do leave, but we would want the AI to be better. If they arent, then they start to become kind of useless

darkknight109 posted...

No, I don't remember our conversation in the old topic because I don't even know what topic you're referring to. Either link to it if it still exists or please stop referencing it, because you're asking me to answer for posts where I have no idea what either of us may or may not have said.

I thought the topic was either a UBI topic made by Mead, or the self-driving car topic (but I dont remember who made it if its this one). I believe it was the one where MannerSaurus (I think that was his name on here) was saying he also didnt like them. But it might have been another one. I cant remember the whole topic, but I remember talking to you about literally the same thing were talking about now. Because it went on about this long. And just like this topic, the responses got longer and longer (I did condense it once by not quoting). But I definitely remember who I was talking to. And it was 100% you The topic was from 3 years ago. So, it would be pretty hard to find. Especially since I would need to know the name of the topic. I dont. I did tag you, though. And I remember what I said because a lot of it is the same. I did go more into detail about the bus station because we were talking about self-driving buses in that topic, as well. And I remember I kept telling you that they wouldnt be full autonomous since they would still need someone to secure people in wheelchairs. And the only thing from that post that was in the response I asked from you was the full autonomous part. The rest that I asked for was in the post from this topic But Ill see if I can find it That site isnt easy to just find a three (or so) year old topic.

darkknight109 posted...

You're right, nobody would buy a self-driving bus if it doesn't fit what they want or need.

Here's another fact: cities are buying self-driving buses.

What does that tell you?

You're making this way harder than it needs to be at this point.

Because its fit what they want, or think they need. Whats sad it nobody seems to be thinking about people in wheelchairs. All those small ones are handicap accessible. Which is sad to see. Im not making this harder. Its just that people suck and dont care about anyone else. Like I said, I know my city has a lot of people in wheelchairs, which is a reason those small buses wouldnt work. Another is they cant carry the amount of people we normally have. Especially for the price I was given in the other topic. Dont know if that changed. Also, we have no idea if those places had wheelchair users. Maybe they didnt so things were fine. Or maybe they did and just said, tough Luck. Im guessing the latter But I guess its fuck everyone whos not like me because I can walk on the bus.
---

This is kind of impressive to watch. Will the debate go to 500? Or will one of them eventually just stop replying? Or, even more unlikely, will we see some persuasion?

JigsawTDC posted...

This is kind of impressive to watch. Will the debate go to 500? Or will one of them eventually just stop replying? Or, even more unlikely, will we see some persuasion?

I don't think persuasion will happen as I won't change my views, I'm pretty sure he won't (which is fine since I'm not trying to persuade him). 500 seems unlikely as we'd have to get over 350 more post, which is a lot. Even split three ways between me, him, and everybody else, that's still be over 100 posts. I figure that we'll eventually stop... But who knows. Maybe we will get to 500...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And what two points am I jumping between

Whether you want to talk about a fully automated future or a partially-automated future, because those are two very different topics.

For instance, money won't (and can't) exist in a fully automated future, but it absolutely can and will in a partially-automated future. You can't just randomly flip between them on one point.

LinkPizza posted...

They actually do. The same program for driving a self-driving car isnt the same for self-checkout. And neither are the same for diagnosing patients. And being built for something isnt just the program, but the actual machine itself.

Most of which can be solved by an AI capable of designing and building other AI.

It's also worth noting that AI can also network more effectively than humans ever will. What one AI learns it can pass on to all the rest.

LinkPizza posted...

As for the bus seats, we still dont have anything like that, though. And thats still hypothetically moving someone to the spot and strapping them in. But nothing like that is out there yet.

Honestly, for a robot that's a pretty simple task. I can guarantee you there are robots fully capable of doing that job in existence *today*. They're nowhere near cost-efficient at the moment, which is why you're not seeing them used, but, as mentioned, costs come down pretty quickly...

LinkPizza posted...

Also, before we have robots performing multiple tasks, we should probably start at one.

We already did - they've been building cars for nearly four decades now and put factory workers out of business by being more cost-effective than them. We passed single-use robots a long, long, LOOONG time ago now. That is positively ancient tech in this day and age.

Even multi-task robots are pretty old. Learning robots are the new kid on the block.

LinkPizza posted...

Theres also the whole watching the automations thing. I feel people would eventually have to. Automations will eventually degrade over time. And even if you have automation watch automation for degrading, those could also degrade. Eventually, you have a never ending line of automation watching automation, and possibly all degrading or whatever

You're thinking way too linearly.

Automaton A doesn't just watch Automaton B for signs of degradation; Automaton B also watches Automaton A. Then Automaton C comes along to watch both of them and both of them watch Automaton C. And when one of them starts to degrade, it gets sent for repairs and then gets back to work.

Which is more or less how humans work. We continually evaluate ourselves for signs of degradation, but for those that we cannot perceive (like degradation of the mind), others will chime in when they notice errors happening in our functions.

LinkPizza posted...

The thing is, we already have one in place: money Why get rid of the bartering system we already have to make another.

Because money exists because of human labour. We've been over this.

In a fully automated future, how are you going to obtain money in the first place? You can't - there will be no jobs for you to do, because a robot is already doing those jobs and will be doing it better than you ever could. Even if you *want* to work, no one will hire you. They would have no reason to. So without money, how do you survive? Well, again, robots are doing all the work and robots don't need to be paid, so they will harvest food for you, make clothes for you, provide heat, and electricity, and entertainment goods, and, well, pretty much anything else you could ask for.

So if you have no way to earn money and, therefore, no way to spend it, money effectively doesn't exist for you. Now realize that everyone else is in the same boat. Suddenly, even if physical money does exist, it becomes completely meaningless because commerce doesn't exist anymore.

Land and real estate is one of the only things that machines can't make more of, so yeah, we're going to need a way to sort that out... but it won't be via money because, again, you have no way to make money.

LinkPizza posted...

They probably got data from more than Grandmasters, though.

No, actually - modern chess-bots are self-taught. They only need to know the rules. They, in essence, make a copy of themselves and start playing games against it and record what does and doesn't work in order to try and optimize moves. That's basically what General Adversarial Networks are.

---

LinkPizza posted...

And I know nothing about Go. There is a person here who plays, but Ive never taken an interest in it. And an AI could easily predict an opponents move. Since I believe there is still a limited amount of moves one could make.

If you know nothing about Go, maybe don't make sweeping statements like "an AI could easily predict an opponent's move", because that's completely wrong when it comes to Go.

In the first two moves of Go alone (i.e. each player placing their first stone), there are 129,960 different combinations that could result. If each player has placed two stones, there are 16,702,719,120 different combinations. The average Go game is 211 moves. See the problem?

That's one of the issues that AIs had - until very recently, there were simply too many possible combinations of moves for them to "brute force" (and even now, "brute forcing" is not how an AI learns and plays Go).

LinkPizza posted...

Not all of them are.

Yes, all of them. All of them are created through humans parsing and interpreting data, the same way AI do. We're just better at it (for now), but there's no reason AI could not be trained to mimic our data input abilities and similarly turn out games.

LinkPizza posted...

That being said, something I do like about human developed games are certain glitches that get left in. Or ways to become overpowered when it shouldnt be possible. Those can be pretty funny. I feel AI wouldnt make those mistakes

It would if it got a positive response from humans.

AI, at its current level, doesn't interpret "right" or "wrong", it just interprets "desired response" from "undesired response". If a glitch or unbalanced gameplay mechanism is something that humans perceive as "fun", the AI would be conditioned to include those. We even see this in AI music, where it can generate slightly out-of-tune songs, rather than perfect ones, because it's learned that that's more "realistic."

LinkPizza posted...

No one wants to do things without compensation. Thats what I believe.

Yet you're actively disproving it. You're posting lengthy posts in this topic and no one's paying you for it. Why? Presumably because you consider this a good way to pass the time.

I've written articles and novellas before - some on this very site - without being paid. It's the same sort of thing a professional writer does (and, indeed, similar but in subject manner to the reports I write and *do* get paid for), but I'm perfectly content doing it without compensation because I don't need to be paid for it and I get contentment and satisfaction merely through the act of creating and sharing it with others. That won't change as automation continues.

LinkPizza posted...

Sorry. I should have said I dont know enough about music to say anything about it. When Ive watched reviews on music made them online, it would usually have somebody who knows more about music that was talking about it

I'm a classically-trained concert-level pianist (though I haven't played in years), so take my word for it - what the better AI musicbots produce at this point is pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing.

And the fact that you - someone without a major backing in music - couldn't immediately jump up and say, "That sounds awful/fake/like a machine made it" is more or less proof positive that it's doing its job. Even if the best musical ears could still tell it was a robot making it... it's still enough to fool 99.99% of the population.

LinkPizza posted...

Sure. For those places. For places like Wal-Mart and Target that have rows of them, theyd be fine.

And you'll note that those places are the ones most likely to have self-serve checkout.

LinkPizza posted...

Probably not all stores. But many are under a parent company who might have done the research for them.

And many more are not. Which you've already conceded, so I don't know why you're still trying to argue this point.

---

LinkPizza posted...

If you go with something cheaper and older, itll be less. But why would they install the older model that will be outdated in stores.

Because it's cheaper. You literally just stated the reason yourself.

Asking "Why would you buy an iPhone 6 when there's a whatever-the-latest-iPhone-available-now right next to it on the shelf?" is a bit like asking, "Why would you buy a Honda Civic when you could just go down to your local Lamborghini dealer and buy yourself a Huracan?"

LinkPizza posted...

Except I dont think theyll recognize all that all the time. I think they are mostly sensing the objects around to see when to stop or steer away. But I dont see them seeing a person looking a little sleepy and then honking to give them a shock to wake up, and maybe pull over. And thats if it notices them nodding off. Because it could be someone who looks awake, but is sleep. Or they could think someone who head is all the way back on the headrest is asleep, when they just sit like that

There are literally car technologies today that will warn you if it detects signs of you getting sleepy. Those signs are as subtle as taking too long to blink or breathing in a way that suggests you're falling asleep.

This is a really bad example for you to pick, because we're not even talking hypothetical tech right now. Here's an NYT article on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/automobiles/wheels/drowsy-driving-technology.html

LinkPizza posted...

The theory is very possible, though.

It's not and you've literally just admitted you can't prove it or even support it with any sort of exercise or analysis that's been done to date. You're literally just making up things that have no basis in reality. It's pointless to continue this particular thread of the discussion, because you are now firmly in the realm of fantasy, not reality.

LinkPizza posted...

Yes. It is. But the accident may not happen immediately after they steer to avoid. It could have a couple of seconds before it happens. And because the car that caused it wasnt hit, it may not know that it was the car that caused the accident. The human may not be paying attention. Or was so focus on what almost happened that he doesnt know (or doesnt know that (s)he caused) an accident somewhere else. It happens fast, but it might not know if its far away enough. Well, it might know about the accident, but not that it caused it. Its also a problem if a human was the one that was hit by a self-driving car that was trying to avoid getting hit. Because it could be a mix of humans and self-driving vehicles on the road together. And humans do leave, but we would want the AI to be better. If they arent, then they start to become kind of useless

Literally everything you just stated is every bit as applicable for humans as AI. Moreso, honestly, given that humans don't have constant 360 degree vision and perfect attention to the road around it.

And we've already been over that AI *are* better in this area. They have cameras and sensors onboard that can pick up what happened and who is at fault far more reliably than a human can. The fact that you've had to contort yourself to concoct an incredibly unlikely scenario wherein a human and an AI are on equal ground - not even where an AI is inferior, but just where it is on equal ground with a human - shows how much better AI are than humans in terms of their behaviour and capabilities regarding accidents.

You're couching it in different language, but your argument is essentially that AI have to be perfect or else they're not worth it. That's not the case - they just need to be better than us. Not even in everything, but better overall. And they are - they're less prone to get into accidents, they don't break the law, they don't drive drunk, and they don't get distracted or sleepy while driving. That alone puts them worlds ahead of humans.

LinkPizza posted...

The topic was from 3 years ago.

If it's from that long ago, why are you still expecting me to remember it in detail?

There's enough to talk about in this topic without dragging up a years-old discussion.

LinkPizza posted...

Because its fit what they want, or think they need. Whats sad it nobody seems to be thinking about people in wheelchairs.

Of course they're thinking about people in wheelchairs - that's literally part of urban planning. You can't *not* think about people in wheelchairs, because that is big-time illegal and opening yourself up to major liability. People with disabilities are entitled to the same level of service as an able-bodied person and are allowed to sue if they do not receive it.

...and yet, the self-driving buses are here and rolling, which tells me they've already come to that bridge and crossed it successfully, because no city would ever willingly open themselves up to that level of liability if they hadn't.

---

darkknight109 posted...

Whether you want to talk about a fully automated future or a partially-automated future, because those are two very different topics.

For instance, money won't (and can't) exist in a fully automated future, but it absolutely can and will in a partially-automated future. You can't just randomly flip between them on one point.

Im not jumping between the points, though. Those are two points we are talking about. Personally, I dont think well ever actually be fully automated. I said as much earlier But, for the sake of the argument, I also looks at things from that point of view, as well And money can (and will) exist because we will still need currency or some sort for many things. For example, buying and selling land. And animals for things like farming, since they are 3D printed. Plus, if there are certain things people do, many may want to be compensated in some forms. And even if you could make anything you wanted, you would need the materials to do so. And those materials would most likely cost money (which this already happens)Not to mention things that may require finite resources. They cant just give all those out for free And restricting those means that we wouldnt be able to just make what we want when we want

darkknight109 posted...

Most of which can be solved by an AI capable of designing and building other AI.

It's also worth noting that AI can also network more effectively than humans ever will. What one AI learns it can pass on to all the rest.

Yeah. But wed have to program them to do that first. Because even if they can learn, theyd have to learn from something else. And wed probably start making them before the AI could learn how to make them. Humans would still need to do extensive testing to make sure they worked correctly and could actually solve the problem. Which means the original problem (Which was building them specifically and taking a lot of time and materials, though I never mentioned that before) still stands

And thats as long as the internet connection is up and working well. And in a place where they can receive the signal. Though, that opens them to hacking. Which is another problem with AI

darkknight109 posted...

Honestly, for a robot that's a pretty simple task. I can guarantee you there are robots fully capable of doing that job in existence *today*. They're nowhere near cost-efficient at the moment, which is why you're not seeing them used, but, as mentioned, costs come down pretty quickly...

It's something that would need to be perfect every time, though. While also being somewhat fast. Especially considering that I believe the self-driving ones go slower than normal buses (based on the videos I saw), and will probably have a little trouble keeping up with the routes. And its not that simple, tbh. At least, right now. Its nor super hard, but we use these straps currently, and they are a pain. According to the parent company, they are the safest right now, while still being removable. And they fit both bus and paratransit vans, while also fitting any sized wheelchair (or anything else we strap down) due to being able to be moved to certain areas. I think a robot could learn it, but it would need EXTENSIVE testing. Because even the straps have their own issues, if were being honest

As for cost efficiency, that means we wont see them for a while, meaning most buses wont be fully autonomous (unless they dont care about the handicapped population). Not to mention, I dont even think they are that common yet. I mean, robots are common yet, but even by robot standards, they probably arent common yet Even when they are more popular, depending on the price, keeping a driver might be cheaper

darkknight109 posted...

We already did - they've been building cars for nearly four decades now and put factory workers out of business by being more cost-effective than them. We passed single-use robots a long, long, LOOONG time ago now. That is positively ancient tech in this day and age.

Even multi-task robots are pretty old. Learning robots are the new kid on the block.

We have them in factories, but we also dont have robots that do everything yet. Plus, each task a robot does needs to go through a bunch of testing (even it if seems simple) before adding it to an existing robots tasks. But if they wanted robots to do everything, I think they should start rolling out single task robots first, and then multitask after seeing how they would work and interact in the real world with millions of other people and robots first Starting be releasing multitasking robots first really feels like the definition of running before learning to walk That being said, depends on if they can make enough for them Based on some things I recently learned about materials

Also, only certain ones are old. And either way, we dont have many popular robots doing all the regular daily stuff youd guys would be needing them to do. Working in factory to me seems different than most peoples daily lives but maybe thats just me

darkknight109 posted...

You're thinking way too linearly.

Automaton A doesn't just watch Automaton B for signs of degradation; Automaton B also watches Automaton A. Then Automaton C comes along to watch both of them and both of them watch Automaton C. And when one of them starts to degrade, it gets sent for repairs and then gets back to work.

Which is more or less how humans work. We continually evaluate ourselves for signs of degradation, but for those that we cannot perceive (like degradation of the mind), others will chime in when they notice errors happening in our functions.

I still see a never ending line or automation, though. Thats where the problem is. There still seems like thered be too many in the end Well, technically, before the end
---

darkknight109 posted...

Because money exists because of human labour. We've been over this.

In a fully automated future, how are you going to obtain money in the first place? You can't - there will be no jobs for you to do, because a robot is already doing those jobs and will be doing it better than you ever could. Even if you *want* to work, no one will hire you. They would have no reason to. So without money, how do you survive? Well, again, robots are doing all the work and robots don't need to be paid, so they will harvest food for you, make clothes for you, provide heat, and electricity, and entertainment goods, and, well, pretty much anything else you could ask for.

So if you have no way to earn money and, therefore, no way to spend it, money effectively doesn't exist for you. Now realize that everyone else is in the same boat. Suddenly, even if physical money does exist, it becomes completely meaningless because commerce doesn't exist anymore.

Land and real estate is one of the only things that machines can't make more of, so yeah, we're going to need a way to sort that out... but it won't be via money because, again, you have no way to make money.

And as I said earlier, money isnt going anywhere. Its used for many things right now, like I said above.

And you are literally explaining my problem. You ask how people would get money is a fully automated world. And thats exactly what Ive been saying the problem. It would actually be really hard. Maybe not as much with UBI, but then everybody would have the same amount. Which means Its still hard to do anything Thats what Ive been saying. We will still need money, but no one will have it or have enough. Especially since well be running really low on jobs. Because if the world gets close to fully automated, money would still need to be flowing...

Im still confused why people think everything will be free, tbh This site is the only place Ive heard this from. IRL, everyone I ask disagrees (pretty much everyone I see) doesnt think that will happen.

Land does need to be sorted out, and it wont be a good outcome for everybody. I have 100% trust that it will end badly. And it will be via money or some kind because money will always exist Also, materials will also be bought with money. I dont think you understand that many materials are finite. So, they will have to be bought or received in some way. Especially to get everybody what they want

darkknight109 posted...

No, actually - modern chess-bots are self-taught. They only need to know the rules. They, in essence, make a copy of themselves and start playing games against it and record what does and doesn't work in order to try and optimize moves. That's basically what General Adversarial Networks are.

They have to learn the game somehow. And I would think giving them the basics would actually make sense. Even if you dont give them the basics, they have to learn from something. So, they are either giving the data, or collecting the data. Even playing against themselves, they would have to know the rules.

darkknight109 posted...

If you know nothing about Go, maybe don't make sweeping statements like "an AI could easily predict an opponent's move", because that's completely wrong when it comes to Go.

In the first two moves of Go alone (i.e. each player placing their first stone), there are 129,960 different combinations that could result. If each player has placed two stones, there are 16,702,719,120 different combinations. The average Go game is 211 moves. See the problem?

That's one of the issues that AIs had - until very recently, there were simply too many possible combinations of moves for them to "brute force" (and even now, "brute forcing" is not how an AI learns and plays Go).

So, I was right when I said limited amount of moves. Theres still a finite amount of moves you can make. And depending on how they play, they could very easily predict an opponents moves. So, no. I dont actually see a problem with what I said.

darkknight109 posted...

Yes, all of them. All of them are created through humans parsing and interpreting data, the same way AI do. We're just better at it (for now), but there's no reason AI could not be trained to mimic our data input abilities and similarly turn out games.

Maybe you misunderstood what I said. I agreed saying not all of them are something new. But some are. Or different enough that people may not have played them before. Its less frequent these days, though But I dont believe theyll ever be as good as humans

darkknight109 posted...

It would if it got a positive response from humans.

AI, at its current level, doesn't interpret "right" or "wrong", it just interprets "desired response" from "undesired response". If a glitch or unbalanced gameplay mechanism is something that humans perceive as "fun", the AI would be conditioned to include those. We even see this in AI music, where it can generate slightly out-of-tune songs, rather than perfect ones, because it's learned that that's more "realistic."

But it probably wouldnt make the mistakes in the first place. To get a positive response, you would first need to make the mistake. The other problem is that I dont know if mistakes that were made on purpose are as funny. But I cant say for sure. Also, I dont want my game to always give me what I desired. Some of the best things are when games do something so unpredictable and make you mad. Or feel despair, in some cases

darkknight109 posted...

Yet you're actively disproving it. You're posting lengthy posts in this topic and no one's paying you for it. Why? Presumably because you consider this a good way to pass the time.

I've written articles and novellas before - some on this very site - without being paid. It's the same sort of thing a professional writer does (and, indeed, similar but in subject manner to the reports I write and *do* get paid for), but I'm perfectly content doing it without compensation because I don't need to be paid for it and I get contentment and satisfaction merely through the act of creating and sharing it with others. That won't change as automation continues.

It probably will for many people, though
---

darkknight109 posted...

I'm a classically-trained concert-level pianist (though I haven't played in years), so take my word for it - what the better AI musicbots produce at this point is pretty much indistinguishable from the real thing.

And the fact that you - someone without a major backing in music - couldn't immediately jump up and say, "That sounds awful/fake/like a machine made it" is more or less proof positive that it's doing its job. Even if the best musical ears could still tell it was a robot making it... it's still enough to fool 99.99% of the population.

No. I wont. I cant because I dont know anything about you, or have seen others things you have done. Or have proof. Many of them had talked about other things (maybe other videos), or had go to school for it. Ill wait until I can see my BF and talk to him about it

As for mentioning it, Im mentioning what the people in the video said. Who I do trust that have a backing in music. So, it wasnt without someone who knew music

darkknight109 posted...

And you'll note that those places are the ones most likely to have self-serve checkout.

Target and Wal-mart? Yeah. They would have more people using them. So they should get more of them Hence why its weird that they dont have more. And there has to be a good reason

darkknight109 posted...

And many more are not. Which you've already conceded, so I don't know why you're still trying to argue this point.

Really? When? I know not all of them do, but many of the ones that Ive seen with a few self-checkouts do have a parent company. Not all, but that doesnt mean many dont have one.

darkknight109 posted...

Because it's cheaper. You literally just stated the reason yourself.

Asking "Why would you buy an iPhone 6 when there's a whatever-the-latest-iPhone-available-now right next to it on the shelf?" is a bit like asking, "Why would you buy a Honda Civic when you could just go down to your local Lamborghini dealer and buy yourself a Huracan?"

Except its not in the long run. Thats why its good to take the whole quote. You quote parts of things, and it make things look different. The rest of the quote said, They want the newest model thats better, and would probably still get most parts made for it. Eventually, the older models will most likely break easier, need more maintenance, and parts become scarce earlier They waste money buying something older that breaks more, and uses harder to find parts. So, its only got a cheaper upfront cost. But these self-checkouts are for making more money in the long run. Buying older models is a bad idea in most cases

Except those are different. You could buy a current model of a Honda civic. And iPhone 6 still has a headphone jack. Plus, many might not be buying it, but receiving it from insurance. But in this case, youre also going the wrong way. Not only would the Lamborghini have more expensive parts, but the parts might also be more scarce. Wouldnt it be much easier to find Honda civic parts? And for pretty cheap, to boot!

darkknight109 posted...

There are literally car technologies today that will warn you if it detects signs of you getting sleepy. Those signs are as subtle as taking too long to blink or breathing in a way that suggests you're falling asleep.

This is a really bad example for you to pick, because we're not even talking hypothetical tech right now. Here's an NYT article on it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/automobiles/wheels/drowsy-driving-technology.html

Of you getting sleepy, but not the other person. Being able to read you and others inside the car is different, hence why I didnt say anything about not recognizing you getting sleepy. Though, even then, it could be wrong. But it depends on what it actually looks for. And its a pretty good example since nothing you said has disproved anything yet I said other people And if the car is self-driving, then the microsleep shouldnt affect much, anyway Though, it sounds like its for manual cars instead of self-driving. It still apparently years away, as well

darkknight109 posted...

It's not and you've literally just admitted you can't prove it or even support it with any sort of exercise or analysis that's been done to date. You're literally just making up things that have no basis in reality. It's pointless to continue this particular thread of the discussion, because you are now firmly in the realm of fantasy, not reality.

Is it very possible, though. Just because I cant prove something doesnt mean its not possible. We cant prove aliens, but its possible, for example. They are many theories that are possible. Or do you not understand the word. Its possible, but unproven. Thats a thing Youre living in a fantasy world if you thing all theories are bad unless they are actually proven

darkknight109 posted...

Literally everything you just stated is every bit as applicable for humans as AI. Moreso, honestly, given that humans don't have constant 360 degree vision and perfect attention to the road around it.

And we've already been over that AI *are* better in this area. They have cameras and sensors onboard that can pick up what happened and who is at fault far more reliably than a human can. The fact that you've had to contort yourself to concoct an incredibly unlikely scenario wherein a human and an AI are on equal ground - not even where an AI is inferior, but just where it is on equal ground with a human - shows how much better AI are than humans in terms of their behaviour and capabilities regarding accidents.

You're couching it in different language, but your argument is essentially that AI have to be perfect or else they're not worth it. That's not the case - they just need to be better than us. Not even in everything, but better overall. And they are - they're less prone to get into accidents, they don't break the law, they don't drive drunk, and they don't get distracted or sleepy while driving. That alone puts them worlds ahead of humans.

It is applicable to humans... But the cars are supposed to be better, yeah?

And they might not pick up whose fault it is. Or blame it on say a human driver that was in the middle of it. Like the cars all swerve and human in the middle swerves, as well. Now the self-driving car that caused it may think it averted a crash. And the self-driving cars involved in the crash might blame the human driver that moved over Its an easy enough scenario that Im not contorting myself into or concocting. Its happened with humans before, so it does happen

Yes. I think they have to be perfect, or why use them? Id rather die by my own hand than by something out of my control like a self-driving vehicles.
---

darkknight109 posted...

If it's from that long ago, why are you still expecting me to remember it in detail?

There's enough to talk about in this topic without dragging up a years-old discussion.

Yeah. It was a long conversation. I remember our conversation very well to a degree. I would think you would remember some stuff And you say that we have new things to talk about, but most of this was talked about before. Hence why Im bringing it up. And almost the same conversation in many parts

darkknight109 posted...

Of course they're thinking about people in wheelchairs - that's literally part of urban planning. You can't *not* think about people in wheelchairs, because that is big-time illegal and opening yourself up to major liability. People with disabilities are entitled to the same level of service as an able-bodied person and are allowed to sue if they do not receive it.

...and yet, the self-driving buses are here and rolling, which tells me they've already come to that bridge and crossed it successfully, because no city would ever willingly open themselves up to that level of liability if they hadn't.

It seems like all the small full autonomous buses werent made for people in wheelchairs. Which is why I dont think they are thinking about people in wheelchairs. And those seem to be the one they want on the road, as well And you may think that, but people can get away with a lot of things. Or at least make things take longer. Saying something like, Were working on it can hold people off for a while
---

@LinkPizza

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, if there are certain things people do, many may want to be compensated in some forms.

If people want compensation, they'll need to do it better than an AI.

In a fully automated future, there's nothing they can do that will be better than an AI.

LinkPizza posted...

And money can (and will) exist because we will still need currency or some sort for many things. For example, buying and selling land. And animals for things like farming, since they are 3D printed. Plus, if there are certain things people do, many may want to be compensated in some forms. And even if you could make anything you wanted, you would need the materials to do so. And those materials would most likely cost money (which this already happens)Not to mention things that may require finite resources. They cant just give all those out for free And restricting those means that we wouldnt be able to just make what we want when we want

Congratulations, you've caught up to where I was when I started this side tangent.

You've struck upon the fact that there's a fundamental issue, which is that there is still scarcity of some things (land and limited raw materials), which necessitates some form of exchange. However, you still haven't realized that without the ability for humans to operate a job market (why would anyone hire you for work when they can get a robot that will do the job better and without demanding a wage?), there is no way to earn money and, therefore, no way for money to exist as a tool of exchange.

This is one of those fundamental problems I've pointed out that we need to solve.

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. But wed have to program them to do that first. Because even if they can learn, theyd have to learn from something else. And wed probably start making them before the AI could learn how to make them.

This is actually quite incorrect. AI, even today, program themselves better than we can. We don't actually know how the most advanced AI's programming works, because it was the result of a self-programming process that produced an incredibly complex result that no programmer in the world can replicate.

As a very simplistic example, let's say you were training an image-recognition program to identify whether a picture contains a cat or not. Trying to program what a "cat" is into an AI is an exercise in futility, because it is almost impossible to do manually. Instead, you get an AI to do it instead (which seems counter-intuitive, since if you can't tell a program what a cat is, how can you tell an AI to make you a program that can tell what a cat is, but it actually does work). The AI takes an image recognition program and basically continually modifies its parameters while testing it against millions of calibration images where it is already known if they contain cats or not. Once it fine-tunes the program to the point where it can correctly identify the cats in each calibration image, it then collects new data to use as test data (CAPTCHAs are frequently used for this purpose) to see if the program works on non-control data. It iterates this process over and over until it can flawlessly distinguish what is and isn't a cat.

Hence, the AI succeeds in making a program that is difficult-to-impossible for a human to make. The same is true of, say, chess-playing robots (how do you program an AI to outsmart a grandmaster when you yourself are not a grandmaster?) or music-creating robots (how do you program an AI to create music if you aren't musically inclined yourself?) or, really, almost any AI.

LinkPizza posted...

It's something that would need to be perfect every time, though. While also being somewhat fast.

They don't have to be perfect every time, though, because humans aren't perfect every time.

Heck, they technically don't even have to be as good as us *or* as fast as us. A robot that does things half as quickly and half as accurately as a human is still cost effective if it's 1/10th the cost. To management that only cares about dollars and cents, they'll happily make that trade because it puts more money in their pockets.

LinkPizza posted...

Especially considering that I believe the self-driving ones go slower than normal buses (based on the videos I saw), and will probably have a little trouble keeping up with the routes.

Self-driving vehicles can go as fast as you want them to. Their reaction times are far, far faster than even the best humans. You'll hit the limits of the vehicle before you hit the limits of the AI driving it.

Self-driving cars tend to go slower than humans on the road because they obey the speed limit, where most humans don't, and drive in a very accommodating, non-aggressive manner, where many humans don't.

LinkPizza posted...

As for cost efficiency, that means we wont see them for a while, meaning most buses wont be fully autonomous (unless they dont care about the handicapped population).

I never said this was happening tomorrow. But the writing is on the wall and those fully automated vehicles are going to be taking over faster than you think.

LinkPizza posted...

I still see a never ending line or automation, though. Thats where the problem is.

How? I literally pointed out how you do this with a finite number of automatons - as many or as few as you like.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Im still confused why people think everything will be free, tbh

Because robots don't need to be paid because - as I've said ad nauseum - money is a measurement of human labour.

When you mow the lawn, do you cut a cheque to your lawnmower at the end of it? When you rake up leaves, do you give your rake $20? Of course not - those are tools, they don't need to be paid.

What about a vacuum cleaner? You probably don't pay that either. But, of course, you still have to do the vacuuming, so it takes some labour from you (and if you had to get someone else to do it, you'd need to pay them for their time). But what if we made a robotic vacuum that would do all the cleaning for you? We could call it... I don't know, a "Vroomba" or something catchy like that. This "Vroomba" could do all the vacuuming for you, no labour on your part required. Would you pay it? I don't think you would.

But you'd still have to pay *for* it, right? And you'd still have to pay to replace it or fix it if it gets damaged, right? Well, what would happen if we had robots that could build you new Roombas for free and recycle the old ones when they get too damaged to continue? You'd have free vacuuming for life, with nary a bill to be paid!

Now take that and apply it to the entirety of all jobs everywhere and you'll see why I'm saying that everything in a fully automated world effectively has zero cost.

LinkPizza posted...

Even playing against themselves, they would have to know the rules.

Well, obviously - I thought that much was self-evident.

That said, just because a program knows *how* to play chess doesn't mean it knows how to play it *well*. That's where the self-teaching AI comes into play.

LinkPizza posted...

So, I was right when I said limited amount of moves. Theres still a finite amount of moves you can make.

I'm not sure you appreciate the sheer scale of the example I just gave you.

The number of potential moves in Go are so high they may as well be limitless. By the 30th move in the game, there are 1.5x10^76 different combinations that could be played. For reference, there are an estimated 10^21 stars in the observable universe. If you could record each combination on a single byte of data, you could use every single piece of digital storage in the entire world (computers, servers, phones, hard drives, etc.) and you would not only not have enough data to store the resultant database, you wouldn't even have scratched the surface. The total estimated computer storage space in the world is 300 exabytes, or 300 x 10^18 bytes. If you could compress the entire world's data storage power - all 300 exabytes - down to a single byte and then build a new data network of 300 exabytes of those new bytes... it still wouldn't be enough. You would need to do that four times - a world-network of world-networks of world-networks of world-networks to have enough storage space to store every permutation and combination. For reference, if you could somehow use a single atom to store a game of Go up to that point, you would use up somewhere between 0.01% and 1% of all of the atoms in the entire observable universe writing out all the possible combinations.

That's all for thirty moves. The average game is over 200 moves (which creates a number of potential combinations so high that Microsoft Excel literally just returns an overflow error when I tried to calculate it).

You see why I pointed out that this was not a game that an AI could solve with brute force?

LinkPizza posted...

And depending on how they play, they could very easily predict an opponents moves. So, no. I dont actually see a problem with what I said.

OK, person who knows nothing about Go, how exactly would an AI very easily predict an opponent's moves? I'm very interested in your answer, given that this was a problem the best computer scientists in the world couldn't solve until ~5 years ago.

LinkPizza posted...

But some are. Or different enough that people may not have played them before.

And why would an AI not be able to similarly create these new games?

LinkPizza posted...

But it probably wouldnt make the mistakes in the first place. To get a positive response, you would first need to make the mistake.

Which an AI that has studied historical human games would potentially do.

LinkPizza posted...

The other problem is that I dont know if mistakes that were made on purpose are as funny.

Goat Simulator was a game made on that premise and it did pretty well for itself.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Also, I dont want my game to always give me what I desired. Some of the best things are when games do something so unpredictable and make you mad. Or feel despair, in some cases

And an AI could very much do that as well.

Again, anything a human programmer can do, an AI of sufficient skill would be able to do just as well.

LinkPizza posted...

It probably will for many people, though

Then those people don't have to write or create; they can go do something else that they find fulfilling instead and let other people and/or the AI take care of it.

LinkPizza posted...

No. I wont. I cant because I dont know anything about you, or have seen others things you have done. Or have proof. Many of them had talked about other things (maybe other videos), or had go to school for it. Ill wait until I can see my BF and talk to him about it

As for mentioning it, Im mentioning what the people in the video said. Who I do trust that have a backing in music. So, it wasnt without someone who knew music

So do you listen to music because other people say that it's high-quality? Or do you listen to it because you personally think it sounds good?

The overwhelming majority of the population will say that it's the latter. They don't really care if the music is formulaic (which even most popular human-written music today is); they just care that it sounds good to them.

An AI is capable of replicating that today. And it's continually improving.

LinkPizza posted...

Target and Wal-mart? Yeah. They would have more people using them. So they should get more of them Hence why its weird that they dont have more. And there has to be a good reason

My guess is because they've hit the cost-efficiency curve. After all, even if they fully-automated checkout, they need people in the store to do other things (stock shelves, man delis, clean up messes, open locked cabinets for higher-priced items, answer customer questions, and so on) - those aren't full time jobs, so having those people man the tills when those tasks aren't required is a way to keep those people busy and productive when there's nothing else for them to do.

Some customers, such as the disabled, also can't readily make use of the current generation of self-checkout machines, so human alternatives are still required.

That won't last forever, though. There's already experimental designs on fully automatic stores that will simply automatically detect what you're taking from the store and debit your credit card as you walk out, no interaction from you required. Those sorts of techs aren't ready for prime time yet, but those sorts of issues are already being looked at.

And, as you already pointed out, retailers are looking at how to automate those other tasks I just mentioned as well. We're already seeing a shade of this with Amazon's automated warehouses. The day may come where, instead of walking into a grocery store, you simply go to a website, order the things you want, and a robot delivers it to your door a few minutes later.

LinkPizza posted...

Really? When?

Well, you do it again in two sentences, so, again, I'm not sure why you're still insisting on arguing the point.

LinkPizza posted...

Except its not in the long run.

So? Not all customers or all businesses have the luxury of worrying about "the long run" - some just need a cheap solution now and don't care if it eventually has a shorter shelf life, because they'll replace it with the next cheapest solution when it eventually dies.

If you don't like the Lamborghini example, ask yourself why anyone would ever buy a used Honda Civic instead of a new one. After all, the used one won't last as long and will be harder to find parts for in the long run. Yet there's still a booming trade in used vehicles. Why?

Because they're cheaper. Because low up-front costs sometimes justify higher back-end costs. If you need a car now and simply don't have the money to plunk down on the newest, shiniest model, you get what your budget will allow.

People don't decide to live in rental houses instead of buying because it's a good decision financially; people do it because they don't have the money for a downpayment on a mortgage and need a roof over their head.

LinkPizza posted...

Of you getting sleepy, but not the other person.

Any visual sign significant enough for a person to pick up on that another driver is falling asleep is something that an AI will be able to just as easily identify. As that tech shows, they can already pick up incredibly subtle signs of falling asleep that a person in the same vehicle would miss; they are just as capable of doing that with other people's vehicles as well. Not to mention, a semi-autonomous vehicle (i.e. one that still has a manual driver) could signal other autonomous cars and say, "Hey, my driver is falling asleep/appears to be unconscious/may be in medical distress, watch out!", something that humans could not do.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Is it very possible, though. Just because I cant prove something doesnt mean its not possible. We cant prove aliens, but its possible, for example.

If you're putting your theory on the same level as aliens, you've pretty much spelled out how realistic a concern it is.

I mean, I could say that it's possible that all humans that are behind the wheel of a car could start randomly exploding a few years from now. It's "possible", after all, and you can't prove that it's not. That doesn't make it a realistic concern.

If you can't come up with something more concrete than leaning on the Devil's Proof, you're going to have to concede this point.

LinkPizza posted...

It is applicable to humans... But the cars are supposed to be better, yeah?

Yes. And they are, as I pointed out in the exact paragraph you quoted as part of this response.

LinkPizza posted...

Its happened with humans before, so it does happen

Sure, it's happened with humans. It hasn't happened with AI, though.

And when it has happened with humans, they haven't all been equipped with 360 degree vision, sensors, and cameras that can be used by law enforcement afterwards to work out what happened.

LinkPizza posted...

Yes. I think they have to be perfect, or why use them? Id rather die by my own hand than by something out of my control like a self-driving vehicles.

I'd rather not die by your hand, though, and that's the difference. Knowing nothing else about you, if I had to choose between you or a self-driving vehicle, I'd choose the self-driving vehicle because it's probably a better driver.

Don't take it personally, I feel that way about pretty much everyone. The average driver is terrible, whereas the average self-driving vehicle is orders of magnitude safer.

You don't use self-driving vehicles because they're perfect, you use them because they're safer than the alternative. I would think that would be self-evident.

LinkPizza posted...

And you say that we have new things to talk about

When did I say that?

LinkPizza posted...

Yeah. It was a long conversation. I remember our conversation very well to a degree. I would think you would remember some stuff

Sorry, but I don't keep four-year-old internet debates in my memory for ready reference. If you do, I'm duly impressed, but if you want to talk about a conversation that old, you'll have to provide some actual quotes.

LinkPizza posted...

Which is why I dont think they are thinking about people in wheelchairs.

Again, it is literally illegal to do this. A private entity might get away with this, but a government would not - especially not in an industry that counts the disabled as regular customers.

---

Oh. Also, since there's like 28 quotes, and I don't wanna quote them all, I'm just going to try to write a response to each in a long one (or two) posts instead of 4 or 5. I don't have as much time to write as I would normally have since I do most of the writing at work. And only do some finishing touches at night... I call it a quote reset So, it might look a little weird, but itll be ok Itll also try to consolidate certain conversations into one spot

People are trying to do better than AI. But its not always easy. But some still will. Like some people will do better at cooking since they might not tell anyone (including AI), their secrets (whether its an ingredient or secret technique that normally wouldnt make sense). And technically, people can do better than self-checkout when people have a full cart. But even though cashiers are faster than self-checkout when someone has a full cart, they still fired a ton of them And trust me, the future will never be fully automated. Were not even anywhere closer to being mostly automated

Caught up? What the hell are you talking about. This is what Ive been saying FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. There will always be money because currency of some kind will be needed. And that currency will be money. Why make a new currency when you already have one. The only problem is that money will be harder to get for everyone Thats what you dont seem to understand And Im the one who pointed that out. Since early on. Even before this topic

How can they program themselves without knowing how to program. They have to work from something. And even then, we need quality control on them. And even if you want to use Ai to do quality control on them, at some point, humans will need to be there to make sure the quality control is going well At some point, humans need to check to make sure everything is going well Thats where the never ending line is. Especially since youll have to have humans watch them to make sure everything is going ok. And youll have to have robots to bring the broken ones to wherever. And there will just be so many. Also, the picture thing is easy to program. We also help with those image things we do on the internet. It wouldnt even be hard to program that. You could also just send the AI to YouTube to watch all the millions of cat videos (a joke, but would probably work) After enough images of a cat, you can say yes or no to something being a cat while its picking out images it thinks that has a cat. So, I dont know why you think its hard. Because it definitely isnt AIs are using us to learn. So in that case, they are learning from something. Theyre learning from us. But they are programed to learn from us. Because you program different machines to do different things

The reason they should be perfect every time is because they are supposed to be better than humans. So, they should be perfect every time. And thats what makes it weird. You say they are only thinking about the dollars and cents, but they still havent implemented self-checkout everywhere

And I know you can program them to go faster. Though, they seemed like most are programed to go slower. Based on what I saw, at least. But since I dont care about, nor like, self-driving videos, I dont go around looking a bunch up. I mean, not like Im getting one. And I dont see them being common anytime soon, either Not for maybe a couple decades. And even then, it will probably be only half and half, if that. And they seem to program them slower for safety right now. And they obey the speed limit, as well. Which is fine in like cities or something. But I think going 5 over or something on an empty highway somewhere is fine as long as you can control the vehicle

The problem is you arent paying the robot. You are paying the people who own them. The robot is the tool in this case, and you are using it from somewhere else. Like when you rent power washers or carpet steamers from the store. The other problem is the people who own the robot need to be able to fix the robot. And that requires resources. And those resources cost money. As a matter of fact, the resources we would use to say 3D print something would also cost money. There are a limited supply of most items. Like diamonds. Diamonds are limited right now. And other items are also limited. Those resources would cost money. Even if you owned the robot, you would need to get it fixed. Which would cost money and resources. Or if you can get a special upgrade. The problem is that money will still exist, but be hard to get And you do realize that people already have to buy the Vroomba you speak of. They arent free So, yes. People would pay for it (the money goes to the store who owned it before you, not the machine), and the proof is that they literally already do And that will still happen. You will pay the owner of the robot instead of the robot itself And theres still the resources. Even if you had a robot build it, it needs the resources to do that. You again assume it would be for free, which is a bad assumption to make. You cant just assume things will be free because you want them to be. Its like if you bought a robot that cooks, you would still need the cooking materials so it can cook it. It cant just make food appear. You need to pay for those. Even if you used a 3D printer or whatever to get the food, you would need the materials to actually make it. So again, Im still confused why people think everything will be free Even in a fully automated world, which will never happen, anyway

So, its still taught the basics, which I believe I mentioned. And while there are millions of moves in chess, they are finite. Based on how they played before (if they have that data), and how they are currently playing, they can usually try to predict their opponents moves, which is what real people also do. They even use data to try to trick opponents. And they learn from their opponents they are playing against. Even if its during that match. And while the number is high (and may start of going higher at first), it eventually gets lower as the game is played more. And the computer can think of millions of ways to play constantly at the same time. Even if there are high, they still are limited in the moves that can be made. As certain moves are made, others become possible or impossible. And the computer can get rid of the impossible moves and focus on only the possible ones. And only the good possible ones. Like if it knows a certain move would be bad with no pay off, that move is now not a move it would make. Basically, even if its a lot of moves, they become more limited as time goes on. And only certain moves would make sense, to a computer or human And I may not know about Go, but I dont underestimate the computers ability to predict moves. It may not be perfect because I hear some people try to trick it. But its probably pretty good when playing against people who are playing the way they normally play Like they may know if someone is more aggressive or passive with their moves or whatever
---

As for video games, the reason I dont think they would be is that theyll be taking data from other games to make games. Thats why I think that. Maybe (and thats a big maybe) they could have created something new and unique in the past. But even now, game developers can have a hard time making new and unique stuff. As for the glitches, they would normally be patched. Though, some games stay wonky, like physics is GTA V. But thats only if the computer would think that. But I dont actually think it would try to do that. I have no proof of this either way. But I dont think it would actually make mistakes. Or the mistakes would be as good Especially since it was never the game devs trying to make them (most of the time). They usually try to squash them. And I feel they would still have sort of quality control that would squash those if they were just out in the open. And would probably think the machine is malfunctioning. Maybe a game could make you feel that way, but Im still skeptical it could. Especially since they dont feel feelings. They just learn them. But I think learning about emotions and feeling them is different

But what else would there be to fill fulfilled in this imaginary automated world? You cant do anything because its all done for you? Theres nothing left to do except be bored and have no purpose. As for music, I listen to what I like to listen to. Some people dont even like the same stuff I listen to. I know dont where you got that people tell me what to listen to. I said I trust what they say about music, though. Like when talking about it. I personally dont know anything about you. And you could literally say anything you wanted. But the people online who talk about it are usually people who either have some sort of proof, or other videos that show they know what they are talking about. Or my BF. I trust him and know he knows about music his whole family is very music oriented And the problem is them replicating it

Apparently, Amazon is working on firing those people, as well. They are trying to teach robots to stock shelves in their stores. Like not just the warehouse, but the Amazon physical store. And then, they will probably sell that to other stores. And I thought it sounded like you wanted those people to be replaced, as well And as for the people needed to use the regular checkout, they still have some. They usually have like 20 (at wal-mart) while only manning like 4 (if that) Target is usually most space efficient. Though even before they had self-checkouts, they still had some empty spots (Though I think that was more due to the turnover rate) And Amazon already makes that. You take it from the store and scan you phone on the way out or whatever. Which means more jobs lost And you can already order whatever you want online. Its just you get a human instead of a robot most of the time. Id rather just go get it, though If Im being honest And I dont see anything that says that there are a bunch of parent companies. I said not all stores are big enough to have one. But many are. Not to mention the ones who have a parent company would probably have a parent company who could/would look into it for them

Businesses should absolutely have the luxury to worry about the long run. Thats just good business sense. Thats how you make money. In the end, cost effectiveness is better if you have to fix it less, and the parts are available and plentiful. Especially since itll probably cost more to keep replacing rather than buying the one that last twice as long Or even longer It would probably end up costing more to keep replacing it over and over instead of getting a good one

As for getting a used on instead of a new one, thats because people, unlike businesses, dont always have the money. Plus, certain cars can usually have more parts readily available. While self-checkouts may not be plentiful in the junkyard, many cars are. So, it still doesnt work. I can actually go to a junkyard and probably find car parts for used stuff. I probably could build a car with junkyard parts. But I probably couldnt make a self-checkout machine. Maybe not even a makeshift one So, those are different Thats why. And cheaper and fixable. But that doesnt go for self-checkout machines So, they should absolutely buy the best self-checkout machines. And for cars, either is fine Because those work very differently And while people may not be able to get loans, businesses usually can At least, the franchises can

Again though, thats in the same vehicle. And people may actually notice, and say something. Some people dont believe them. And so they probably wouldnt listen to the car either. But again, thats in the same car And thats if the other vehicle in autonomous. But at that point, whats the issue. It can just pull over if it was self-driving. But in the end, thats still in its own car. But humans can probably see inside other cars better. And probably more accurately

The aliens thing is to show how anything can happen. But its a very realistic situation. Whether you want to believe it or not. Or are you saying if a self-driving car move toward another, the other one wont move. Because if youre saying it wont move, then they suck. But if they would move out of the way, then my theory makes sense. All that needs to happen for my theory to make sense would be the self-driving car moving out of the way if another self-driving car was coming toward it from the side. Why are you acting like that is impossible. Especially in multi-lane roadways So, I mean, the only way my theory doesnt make sense is if self-driving cars will just allow cars to run into them from the side So, I guess thats what youre saying. Because if so, than they sound pretty shitty

And the reason it happened with AI yet is because there arent enough on the road. Theres still only a few of them. There would have to be quite a few for it to happen. And it has an especially high chance when the road is mixed with humans and self-driving. Once you have a bunch on the road at once, more things will most likely start to happen As for dying, Id rather die by a human instead of a machine. But I also rather be able to control it myself. And while the car may be good at driving, Id rather it not make decision to save someone else instead of me. I dont think the choice will happen much (hopefully), but Id probably be the one to die. Being older, and probably alone, in the car. And while Id be fine giving my life for some people, Id rather do it then let my car decide who gets to liveAnd yes. I would want them to be perfect. Otherwise, they seem like a waste to me

Sorry. I guess what you said was, Theres enough to talk about in this topic without dragging up a years-old discussion. But this is basically the same stuff we talked about then, as well. Only a few new pieces of info Its not four years old. It was like two. And I dont know the whole conversation. But I remember our long conversation. It lasted for a while then, IIRC I dont remember how many post, though. But it was long then, as well It had to be when I was at both the bus job and doing weekends on base where I ate at the DFAC. So, there was only a small span when it could have been I also remember talking to my boss about it

Its illegal to leave them out. But as long as you are thinking about them (or saying you are), it can delay things. How long they can delay it, Im not sure. But all those small buses dont seem to be handicap friendly, so somethings going on if theyre using a lot of those
---

I'd be alright with it if this topic was automated.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Like some people will do better at cooking since they might not tell anyone (including AI), their secrets (whether its an ingredient or secret technique that normally wouldnt make sense).

Sure, a high-end chef with Michelin stars to his name might be able to make that claim.

The overwhemling majority of commercial chefs simply follow a recipe that an AI could easily learn and that is good enough for 90+% of the population. Moreover, since AI can communicate, an AI can learn how you like your dishes prepared and adjust its recipes accordingly, even if you are at a restaurant on an entirely different continent. It's like your own personal chef following you, which is something a human cannot match.

LinkPizza posted...

And technically, people can do better than self-checkout when people have a full cart.

"Better" by what metric?

"Faster"? Sure, probably, at least with current self-checkout carts (though check back in a few years when automatic debiting is ready for rollout). "Cost effective?" AI wins there, even with a full cart. A system that is twice as slow as a human is still more efficient if it's 10x cheaper. Hence why, as you've observed, a lot of cashiers have lost their jobs to self-checkouts.

LinkPizza posted...

Caught up? What the hell are you talking about. This is what Ive been saying FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. There will always be money because currency of some kind will be needed. And that currency will be money. Why make a new currency when you already have one.

OK, I guess you're not quite caught-up yet if you still haven't figured out that money can only exist in a world where there is human labour available to earn it...

LinkPizza posted...

How can they program themselves without knowing how to program.

They do know how to program. That's not even a new development. How do you think learning AI works? It has to be able to program itself in order to actually "learn" a lesson.

LinkPizza posted...

The reason they should be perfect every time is because they are supposed to be better than humans. So, they should be perfect every time.

Why do you continue to conflate "better" with "perfect"? Those are not even close to the same thing. At this point, you're just being deliberately obtuse on this.

LinkPizza posted...

And I know you can program them to go faster.

Then why did you raise the point that they're slower?

The speed they go is entirely a human choice. You seem to already know that, so why are you arguing this?

LinkPizza posted...

And I dont see them being common anytime soon, either Not for maybe a couple decades.

You're grossly underestimating the financial interests that are pushing this. Some of the biggest companies on the planet want to see this technology go live. Uber has based their entire business around it. If you think this isn't coming - and coming soon - you're being wilfully delusional. Again, these cars are on the roads right now. They are already around you and they will only be growing more common with each passing year (especially with COVID pushing an automation boom at the moment).

---

LinkPizza posted...

But I think going 5 over or something on an empty highway somewhere is fine as long as you can control the vehicle

So humans can tell them to do so. Again, this is entirely a human decision, not a limitation of the AI. You can get the AI to drive double the speed limit, so long as you can convince the humans in charge of law enforcement that it's a good idea to do so...

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is you arent paying the robot. You are paying the people who own them. The robot is the tool in this case, and you are using it from somewhere else.

Do you cut your local hardware store a cheque every time you use your lawn mower? If not, why do you think robots would be any different?

LinkPizza posted...

The other problem is the people who own the robot need to be able to fix the robot. And that requires resources. And those resources cost money.

Those resources cost money because they require human labour to extract and process. Automate that and those resources can be gathered and processed (or, more likely, recycled and reprocessed) for free.

LinkPizza posted...

And you do realize that people already have to buy the Vroomba you speak of. They arent free

That would be because humans make them right now, out of resources extracted by humans and shipped by humans to factories built by humans. Every human in that supply chain can, at least in theory, be replaced by a robot. Do that and your costs become zero.

Again, you are being deliberately disingenuous on this point. I have already explained this to you numerous times.

LinkPizza posted...

People would pay for it (the money goes to the store who owned it before you, not the machine), and the proof is that they literally already do

Because we're not in the fully automated future we're talking about here, genius. Once again, you're jumping back and forth between the mostly- or fully-automated future and the non-automated present.

LinkPizza posted...

Its like if you bought a robot that cooks, you would still need the cooking materials so it can cook it. It cant just make food appear. You need to pay for those.

And if that food is cultivated by a robot from seed to dinner plate?

LinkPizza posted...

So, its still taught the basics, which I believe I mentioned. And while there are millions of moves in chess, they are finite. Based on how they played before (if they have that data), and how they are currently playing, they can usually try to predict their opponents moves, which is what real people also do. They even use data to try to trick opponents. And they learn from their opponents they are playing against. Even if its during that match. And while the number is high (and may start of going higher at first), it eventually gets lower as the game is played more. And the computer can think of millions of ways to play constantly at the same time. Even if there are high, they still are limited in the moves that can be made. As certain moves are made, others become possible or impossible. And the computer can get rid of the impossible moves and focus on only the possible ones. And only the good possible ones. Like if it knows a certain move would be bad with no pay off, that move is now not a move it would make. Basically, even if its a lot of moves, they become more limited as time goes on. And only certain moves would make sense, to a computer or human And I may not know about Go, but I dont underestimate the computers ability to predict moves. It may not be perfect because I hear some people try to trick it. But its probably pretty good when playing against people who are playing the way they normally play Like they may know if someone is more aggressive or passive with their moves or whatever

What point are you even trying to make with all this? You don't even seem to be arguing anything about this tangent anymore, just talking in incredibly abstract terms about a game you don't even know how to play.

---

LinkPizza posted...

As for video games, the reason I dont think they would be is that theyll be taking data from other games to make games.

Which is what humans do, so that's not a change.

LinkPizza posted...

Though, some games stay wonky, like physics is GTA V. But thats only if the computer would think that.

By the same token, current games stay wonky only if the humans think it's a good idea. Again, not a change.

LinkPizza posted...

But I dont think it would actually make mistakes.

You say this after arguing earlier in your post that AI always makes mistakes and therefore requires humans to supervise them.

So which is it? AI are perfect intelligences entirely absent the capacity to make mistakes or they are error-prone and require human supervision?

LinkPizza posted...

But what else would there be to fill fulfilled in this imaginary automated world? You cant do anything because its all done for you? Theres nothing left to do except be bored and have no purpose.

If your entire purpose in life is your job, I suggest you get a hobby.

There are plenty of fulfilling things to do that don't involve a job. Hell, if I could retire tomorrow, I would do so. I am confident I could live 500 years and not run out of things to do. If you cannot and require a job to find fulfillment, that's a sign that you need to make some life changes.

LinkPizza posted...

I know dont where you got that people tell me what to listen to.

Mostly from the fact that you refuse to form an opinion on AI-generated music, despite the fact that it sounds like you have perfectly functional ears. You don't need a professional musician to tell you whether that music sounds good or not; just listen to it yourself and find out.

LinkPizza posted...

And the problem is them replicating it

Which they've already done, as evinced by those Youtube videos.

LinkPizza posted...

Apparently, Amazon is working on firing those people, as well. They are trying to teach robots to stock shelves in their stores. Like not just the warehouse, but the Amazon physical store. And then, they will probably sell that to other stores.

Which all pretty much supports what I'm saying, no?

---

LinkPizza posted...

Businesses should absolutely have the luxury to worry about the long run.

I can tell you don't run a business.

I do. I've owned a small business as a side-gig for seven years and there are times where I'm lucky if there's enough money in the business account to cover my expenses for that *month*. I'm not in a line of work where I need to worry about asset depreciation, but I can tell you that long-term finances don't generally factor into my thinking, because I simply don't have the working capital to take advantage. If someone told me, "Hey, this machine costs $100,000 but will save you twice that over the next ten years!", I would simply laugh at them because that's far more than my business can afford to spend, regardless of the savings.

Whether it's good business sense or not, I can't spend money I don't have and neither can any other business.

LinkPizza posted...

As for getting a used on instead of a new one, thats because people, unlike businesses, dont always have the money.

Apparently wherever you live businesses have access to infinite money. Must be nice.

LinkPizza posted...

But I probably couldnt make a self-checkout machine. Maybe not even a makeshift one So, those are different

Sure you could.

Maybe not you specifically, but people can. Amateur robotics/electronics construction is absolutely a thing and all of the parts and components you need are publicly available from online marketplaces, often for pretty cheap prices.

LinkPizza posted...

The aliens thing is to show how anything can happen.

The "aliens thing" is a standard Devil's Proof.

If you think those are valid, then here's mine - a mysterious company has already developed an AI that will automate everything in five years. If you don't believe that's possible, you need to prove to me that it isn't true. You won't be able to, because that's also a Devil's Proof, but go ahead and try.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Or are you saying if a self-driving car move toward another, the other one wont move. Because if youre saying it wont move, then they suck. But if they would move out of the way, then my theory makes sense.

You haven't even been able to articulate what your theory *is*, nevermind how it would affect AI but not humans in the same scenario. Give me a break with this - you've come up with some bizarre fantasy in your head that is so outlandish you can't even describe it, you are completely unable to cite any proof that suggests it has any basis in reality, and you're somehow expecting that this will stand as a valid point in this argument?

No. Drop this point, it's over. You will never be able to prove that this is a valid concern.

LinkPizza posted...

But humans can probably see inside other cars better. And probably more accurately

They literally cannot. AI are objectively better at vision than humans. We are limited by biology; they are not. For the same reason why a satellite-mounted telescope can see far farther than even the most keen-sighted human, an AI can see better than a human into a nearby vehicle.

LinkPizza posted...

And it has an especially high chance when the road is mixed with humans and self-driving.

This fantasy scenario of yours has an especially high-chance? Then let's see a source for it.

LinkPizza posted...

And I dont know the whole conversation.

If *you* can't even remember the whole conversation, why are you expecting me to do so?

LinkPizza posted...

But all those small buses dont seem to be handicap friendly, so somethings going on if theyre using a lot of those

Exactly - and that "something" is that they are capable of taking handicap passengers, because not doing so is, as you've observed, illegal.

---

Most chefs at normal restaurants follow a restaurants recipe. Thats true. But those chefs arent the one normally using secret ingredients, or making special foods or whatever. And a bunch of those places basically sell home versions of their food (or have the recipe listed out somewhere). Humans can also have personal chefs somewhere else, too. And they can also match you taste. The good ones, at least Plus, I dont see many people carrying a robot with them everywhere they travel

By better, I do mean faster. But also better in most cases, as well (like bagging, which we probably still be at checkout if getting many groceries) And I dont see it getting any faster in a couple of years. In what world do you think self-checkout will get faster in a couple of years. Its been around since 1992. Nearly 30 years. Whats going to magically change to make it better. Automatic debiting is still in the works, too. Thats probably going to take more than a few years. Especially since some guy was already able to steal from Amazon using some weird trick. They still have a ways to go before thats ready to work. Even the mobile scanners that I saw years ago had problems (probably theft) and I havent seen them around since. Its going to be more than a couple of years for that to actually be effective. And thats if they decide to go that route, at all And you say cheaper, yet we still dont have them at every store. You said it wasnt cost effective for stores, even though I said it was. So which is it? Cost effective or not? And if its cost effective, why are we still waiting on stores to have more than 4 when many of the bigger stores have like 10 empty lanes all the time?

And money will always exist. I surprised with the imagination of the people on this board. Ive literally asked most people I know in real life that I speak with on at least a weekly basis about this. Nobody except for people on this board think everything will be free. The closest was a friend that said what you said which was, Money is a concept of human labor. But even he said that everything wont be free. He said we wont be able to make money, and therefore wont be able to buy anything. I think you need to catch up with the way the world works. The people buying and helping to fund automation are the people with money. And that money gives them power. They arent going to make anything free. They might not even make it cheaper. They are using their money to make more money. And they must have a plan. They wouldnt do anything that would hurt their profits. If we cant work for money, they we would ALL have government assistance. Which is worse, tbh Well be stuck with a monthly (or weekly, or whatever) allowance to spend on everything we own And that will suck Well, the ones who cant work. Some people will always work. The world wont ever be fully automated. And it wont even be close anything soon Just because there is no human labor doesnt mean money wont exist. It just means we wont be able to make any There will always be money. Or a currency, I should say. Physical money might not exist, but digital money (like in our bank accounts) will always exist

So, they would have to be programed to know how to program Or programed to learn to program, which is like being programed to know how to program Which is what I said. Wed still have to program them to know how to program (or how to learn how to program first) And I want to be perfect because if I have to give up control, it better be perfect. If not, Ill do it. Its really that simple And the reason I said they are going slower is it seems like all the ones Ive seen were going much slower. Plus, you dont get full control of it. Because they are just computers, they will be under the control of anyone who has access like police or other emergency vehicles. Not to mention anyone who can hack them And they still probably wont go over the speed limit. Which would suck on long highway. And I dont mean like 20 over of anything. Even 5-10 over for hours can make a big difference on empty highways But they will most likely have governors or something to keep them from going over The only ones who will be able to speed are the one who hack or jailbreak it. Which is a whole issue in itself (the hacking) The chance of being able to make a car go faster than the speed limit is low to none for regular drivers

And I dont think Im under estimating anything. Even if they got everything settled with them, they will be pretty expensive. And many people that dont need a new car wont even look at them. And some people only buy used, and the market for used self-driving wont really be expansive Some will be around, but it wont be anywhere new commonplace for at least a decade. And thats being generous Youre the delusional one if you think they are going to be common anytime soon And I heard from someone else that the push for electric cars seem to be more in demand than self-driving You act like being on the road means anything. But like I said, self-checkout has been around for 30 years. And there are still stores that dont have any Just because they are on the road means nothing but they are on the road. It could be any amount of time, but will most likely be a while before they are common. And that still depends on how the public reacts to them And just because its get more common doesnt mean its going to be common anytime soon. My co-worker just checked online and an article says that new cars only make up like 6% or cars on the road or whatever. And all new cars sold probably wont be all self-driving

As for the lawn mower, it depends on if you rent or buy. For example, people rent carpet steamers pretty often. They pay whoever and take the carpet steamer home for however long. Some earlier automatons will probably be like that. Others that you buy will probably be an expensive as cheap cars. They dont seem like theyd be cheap to make. And whoever made them will want a profit. And thats if you buy it. But who said you can buy it. If a store is using them to make something like food, for example, you will still pay for the food. You arent paying the robot, but the store making the food. So, whoever the human owner is Even if its the corporation itself
---

They cost money because everything has a price. Not just because humans gather them. Even when robots are gathering them, they will cost money. Its kind of like how when things get cheaper to make, the price for us to buy usually stay the same. Because they are looking for ways to make a bigger profit. Because thats what they care about Profit! Free is a nice thought, but one that will never come true Just like the vroombra. The reason they are free is because everything has a price. Those are probably made on an assembly line thats automated. It cost money because literally everything does. Whether humans work the factory or not, they will cost money. Things wont just become free. The most is maybe some stuff becomes cheaper. And even that might not actually happen And even then, stuff wouldnt be free until a lot more in automated. Because not everything will be automated at the same time. Meaning everything will still cost money until they get closer to full automation (which is like decades away). And because they will never reach full automation, things wont ever be free In the end, the materials arent just free because a robot harvested them. If that was true, the person who gets the materials wouldnt do it because he has no need to get them. You the disingenuous one if you really think things will be free for no reason. If they were true, many things would already be free. We have automated factory lines for many things already. And they cost money

As for the seed to dinner plate, are you saying its going to grow a full plate in the course of an hour while making dinner? And what about meat? And cheese? And where do you get the seeds? That would still cost money, as well You need materials, and materials are going to cost money. All that stuff cost money. You will still have to pay for it.

The point of the computer being able to predict moves is that its computer. Based on how someone is playing (or how they played before), they can usually make a good prediction. Especially since the computer might know if someone is playing aggressively, passively, offensively, or defensively And for video games, they do take from other games. But there are plenty trying to make original games. Or more original. And trying Though, sequels are pretty big. But I would at least know they are trying to make something new. Where AI seems like it would basically just mixed from what it has instead of making actual original. Like, Im not sure it would try to make something new Like with the videos it created for a few funny channels As for staying wonky, it depends. For humans, even if they try to fix it, there are always mods. Or they may fail to fix it. Or they dont actually fix it correctly. Though, a computer probably could. And most likely would As for games like goat simulator and deer simulator, they were made by humans, AFAIK Which were both weirdly original

Yeah. They do need to be watched. They arent perfect. But thats why I dont think mistakes will happen since theres no way a computer makes a game without any human interference in some way. Mainly because they have testers. And they have to pass them. I think any mistakes in the game they might make will be the visible ones. And since most game devs dont usually try to make mistakes, they would probably inform the AI, who would change it and eventually continue to look out for that specifically. But yeah. The AI wont release mistake riddled games because they will always have people check them. Of course, we have to see, though Though, most automation will require human supervision. Like all pretty much will

My entire purpose isnt my job. But thats where I go to talk to friends. And it gives me something to do during the day. Ive done the staying at home and not working. Even with multiple hobbies, life became very boring for me. It can work for a little while. But for the rest of your life, it would suck. I like work so I can talk to friends. And hang out and stuff. We even play games, watch shows, and read or whatever Hobbies only go so far not to mention costly Because money will still be needed for many hobbies (if not all) I couldnt even do the rest of my life starting today without being bored most of the time. If you can, good for you. But I dont that fits most people. I think people would be fine not working, but I also think theyd be very bored most of the time if has nothing to do with life changes. People like certain things. But doing something too much can cause that thing to become somewhat boring Like how people like to play different games instead of the same one forever and ever

I have my own opinions. But people who know about music were talking about that in videos. But that has no bearing on what I listen to myself. If someone who knows more about music is talking about the AI generated music, then I have no reason to doubt them on one video alone. When more people were saying the same thing, and many were someone who knew about music, it seemed like they were probably all right, and telling the truth. But that doesnt mean they tell me what to listen to. They are giving information on how the AI works/worked. Im not even sure if those videos gave recommendations on what to listen to It was informational about AI generated music They listen to the things that the music was based off of. I probably havent. And the point wasnt about it sounding good. It was when it sounded like a blatant rip-off by using the same patterns from somewhere else because of how it just sucks in and mixes info most of the time By replicating it, are you agreeing that they are just ripping off other music, then? And Amazon getting robots to stock shelves is bad because thats more jobs lost I dont see how that supports anything youre saying.

It sounds more like you dont know how to run a business (or a big one, at least). Especially if you were struggling to keep it going or make enough. Youre talking about a small business. Im talking about the bigger ones. The ones that actually have self-checkout machines and arent getting more. The ones you think will wait for cheaper ones. Businesses should absolutely get better ones. Getting older ones is just throwing away money. Small businesses may need some extra time (though 30 years seems like quite a bit of time). But thats if they even need self-checkout, which many dont for mom and pop style shops. But big businesses should always be thinking in the long run. And they usually have the money to do just that And honestly, maybe part of the problem was you werent thinking long term about it. You have to thinking both long and short term. You cant just thinking about one. Eventually, you may have to sacrifice something. But it should usually be the less riskier choice you choose. And that would mean that you should buy the newer models of self-checkout. For the stores that need them Especially when its place like Target or Wal-Mart who probably arent going anywhere any time soon And while they dont have infinite money, those giant corporations have the money to keep putting up building all over the place. They probably have access to more money than people trying to buy cars. Especially young people who can only get starter jobs as teenagers. They usually dont have enough for a new car. And may not get a job they are pretty sure they will keep that will pay enough.
---

Maybe some people could make one. But I dont think all the parts are all there, either. So, I still doubt it. Like advance scanners and such. Nor are there many classes on how to build a self-checkout machine from junk parts. Where cars have millions of videos and articles on it. Plus, common knowledge for some people. Many people who havent made a car probably could Eventually. But self-checkout machines are different. They take specialty parts. Some cars do, but you could probably find more of those than self-checkout parts. And could always make a different car. Self-checkout, you would need to hope the parts you need have been thrown out. You could probably make most of it. But probably not the whole thing That said, I could find an article or video on how to actually make one. Though, I only looked for a little while at work, so maybe they exist somewhere I just kept finding articles on how to use them for some reason

If you dont like the alien theory, thats fine. But that still doesnt mean things cant happen. Especially if they arent planning for it. And especially on those bigger multilane highways. All kinds of crazy accidents happen all the time. They have tons of YouTube videos of them... And I believe its possible that a corporation has invented it. And that corporation would also destroy the world. And it could happen. I have no proof that it hasnt. But I can say that youre basically saying that self-driving cars cant have accidents if you dont like how they can happen. So, I guess youre trying to say they are perfect. But I will say that I disagree Ive seen weird accidents. And I dont think self-driving cars are perfect and car easily have an accident than spans over multiple lanes of traffic But if you think theyre perfect, thats on you I dont see how a car moving over to avoid another car, causing another car to move over, and causing another one to move over is so impossible, but maybe you know of some new form of magic I havent heard of I think I explain it easily enough to understand, even if not perfectly. But I can try again:

A dumb human runs into the road, and a self-driving car doesnt have time to stops, and tries to swerve to avoid them. They are in the right lane and the only way to avoid them is to go to the left (could be a sidewalk with people or even a gas station with people and cars). But the left lane has more traffic. Because it has to be done fast, it swerves to the left toward another self-driving car. And that one has to swerve to the left to avoid that car. It could easily get to the point where one cant swerve without causing an accident. Or one of them dont register the signal to move left. Or that a human driver was to the left, which they either hit or dont swerve to hit causing an accident with the other self-driving car. In the end, its possible the first car that swerved didnt know about the accident that occurred, thus didnt stop Especially in the human took control because it swerved and they got spooked by it.

Does that make enough sense for you? As for humans, they might also make a mistake, as well. But if Im supposed to trust my life in the hands of an AI, I wouldnt want it making mistakes That said, I dont ever plan on getting in a self-driving car, so I should only have to worry about them crashing into me.. Anyway, its not a fantasy. Just because you dont understand how accidents can happen doesnt mean it cant. There are all kinds of accidents where it might not look like it made sense how it happened. Or a one in million change things happened. Like a flaming tire hitting you windshield or whatever. And that is an accident that can easily be causing by self-driving cars that try to move over to avoid other cars. I dont know if its just you, or if its easier to explain in person So, I wont drop this point because Im right and it could easily happen But you can do whatever you want And if you want accident sources, go to youtube. All sorts of weird accidents happen. For my scenario to happen, well have to wait a couple decades for self-driving cars to be common If they ever become common Since the whole main point of this accident is self-driving cars (possibly mixed with human drivers, as well). If my accident couldnt happen, that would mean that self-driving cars would either hit the human, or swerve and hit another self-driving car that doesnt move. But Im sure self-driving cars would try not to hit each other, so

They probably easily can. At least when it comes to telling if a person is actually asleep AI may have better vision. But thats better vision at what they are looking at. Which might not be the face of another driver in a different car. So, I still say humans can probably tell whether another driver of a different car in asleep

And here you are quoting badly again to change my words. I said, And I dont remember the whole conversation. But I remember our long conversation. That means I dont remember what everyone else was talking about, but I remember the conversation we had. So please dont put words in my mouth. Especially when I gave you the sentence. Bad quoters like you are horrible when it comes to stuff like that. I dont remember what others were talking about, but I literally said, But I remember our long conversation. Be better

And those small buses arent. Theres nowhere to safely strap them down so their chair doesnt move. So, obviously, they arent. Not only that, but if they were, they would have definitely showcased that. That would be a huge selling point. And none of the small bus videos showed them strapping in a wheelchair. They didnt even have people in wheelchairs try the buses. How can you say they are handicap capable when they literally arent. So, no. They arent capable. And they probably dont care right now because with money, you can do whatever you want and keep people at bay by talking about a future one thats handicap capable, even if you have no such project in work (or its in work, but on the back burner). Or hoping someone else learns how to handle it first. None of those were handicap capable, though Especially when that one guy got in filming, I specifically looked for something for people in wheelchairs. And saw nothing. Short of having to have someone lift you out of the chair and put you in the seat. But not everything can do that one their own

The end result is we will never be fully automated. And near full automation wont be anything soon, if ever. Money (or currency of some sort) will always exist. People who have money have power, and they wont just give it up. Self-checkout will still be slow. And self-driving cars wont be commonplace for probably decades. These are the actual facts
---

LinkPizza posted...

Most chefs at normal restaurants follow a restaurants recipe. Thats true. But those chefs arent the one normally using secret ingredients, or making special foods or whatever.

So you're saying instead of 100% of chefs being automated, only 95% are at risk?

OK. I don't think that really changes the argument as much as you seem to think.

LinkPizza posted...

Humans can also have personal chefs somewhere else, too.

The really rich ones, sure. For 99% of the population, that isn't a realistic option.

LinkPizza posted...

Plus, I dont see many people carrying a robot with them everywhere they travel

They don't have to.

Again, you're thinking about this way too small-scale. A "robot" isn't just a physical device, it's a network. If you tell Starbucksbot exactly how you like your coffee and fine-tune it to your exact tastes, you don't have one robot who knows how to make you the perfect drink, you have millions. Every Starbucksbot in the world now knows your personal taste, meaning that when you go on vacation you'll be able to have your coffee made exactly as you like it, even though you might be on a totally different continent.

LinkPizza posted...

By better, I do mean faster. But also better in most cases, as well (like bagging, which we probably still be at checkout if getting many groceries) And I dont see it getting any faster in a couple of years.

Again, I already explained this. This is where quoting what you're responding to helps, because you might have noticed the explanation inherent in what I said.

"Better" need not be faster; in fact "better" can be slower. A system that is half as fast as a human but ten times cheaper is still "better" in the owner's eyes.

LinkPizza posted...

You said it wasnt cost effective for stores, even though I said it was. So which is it? Cost effective or not? And if its cost effective, why are we still waiting on stores to have more than 4 when many of the bigger stores have like 10 empty lanes all the time?

You keep bringing up points I've already explained to you.

Owning a washing machine is more cost effective than going to a laundromat by far; yet there are still lots of people who use laundromats, for a variety of reasons. Does that mean washing machines aren't actually cost effective in the long run? No, it just means there's more metrics that businesses consider when upgrading their tech.

LinkPizza posted...

Ive literally asked most people I know in real life that I speak with on at least a weekly basis about this.

Your personal anecdotes are not statistically valid, nor are they all that relevant to the debate.

LinkPizza posted...

I think you need to catch up with the way the world works. The people buying and helping to fund automation are the people with money. And that money gives them power. They arent going to make anything free.

You might want to brush up on your history if you haven't spotted the pattern in tech advances.

Even if, say, Amazon wanted to continuously charge money for the use of their robots, "AI" is not a physical property, it's a design idea. And you cannot ban - or even really control - an idea. If Amazon doesn't make things as cheap as they can, which will effectively be free, one of their competitors will undercut them. Eventually, via that process, it will get cheap enough that hobbyists put out free versions (and long before that tech pirates will be doing the same). We've seen this with pretty much every technology in the world. Any music, any program, almost anything that can be digitized can be found online today, often completely for free as long as you're willing to skirt the rules. Why do you think AI will be in any way differently.

---

LinkPizza posted...

They wouldnt do anything that would hurt their profits.

This is sort of like saying, "Digital cameras will never replace film; disposable camera companies wouldn't do anything that would hurt their profits."

LinkPizza posted...

There will always be money. Or a currency, I should say.

You should, because those are not the same thing and you've readily demonstrated in this topic that you don't understand the difference.

LinkPizza posted...

So, they would have to be programed to know how to program Or programed to learn to program, which is like being programed to know how to program Which is what I said. Wed still have to program them to know how to program (or how to learn how to program first)

Why are you using conditional tense here as though it hasn't already happened?

Robots already know how to program, dude. That's one of the easiest things to teach a program how to do.

LinkPizza posted...

And I want to be perfect because if I have to give up control, it better be perfect. If not, Ill do it. Its really that simple

And you'll do it worse than an AI, because even if it isn't perfect, it's still better than you. And, as a result, very quickly you will find that you cannot be employed in a field that an AI can do. This will extend to things like driving as well - in much the same way that you are no longer allowed to have a horse do the manual work that an internal combustion engine does and be on the same highway, you - a human driver - will eventually be banned from driving a car outside of special hobbyist tracks designed for that purpose, because you are far more unsafe than the AI-operated cars.

LinkPizza posted...

And they still probably wont go over the speed limit.

You're complaining about not being able to break the law with this point.

Campaign for higher speed limits if you actually want this to happen.

LinkPizza posted...

And many people that dont need a new car wont even look at them.

They don't need to be. The beauty of self-driving cars is that they don't need to be "owned" by anyone. Instead of owning a car and having it take up a bunch of space in your property and, in essence, requiring a fairly significant chunk of space in your home (driveway and garage), you can simply buy-in to a network of self-driving cars. Any time you want to go somewhere, you simply press a button that says, "Send a car to pick me up at 8:00". When 8:00 rolls around, your self-driving car will be ready and waiting for you and you just hop in, let it drive you to wherever you're going, get out, and the car will be on its way, heading off to drive its next passenger.

At any given time, most cars in existence are idle, sitting in parking lots or driveways. By shifting to self-driving, you would dramatically reduce the need for both number of cars and amount of space dedicated to them, which would have all sorts of positive implications on waste, carbon emissions, real estate prices, and the like. Plus, it means you would basically have all the benefits of owning a car with none of the financial obligations.

LinkPizza posted...

And I heard from someone else that the push for electric cars seem to be more in demand than self-driving

This is a non-sequitur. It's not like a car has to choose between being electric or being self-driving; it can be both. Most self-driving cars already are electric.

---