Poll of the Day > Controversial Opinion #4: Automation

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
darkknight109
05/01/21 4:25:08 AM
#151:


LinkPizza posted...
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.
Again, why are you using future tense for this? You're acting like these robots are future tech rather than something that's commercially available, right this very second.

Here you go, if you have roughly $25,000 (depending on options/applications), you too can be the proud owner of a learning robot: https://www.active8robots.com/robots/sawyer-robot-uk/buy-sawyer-robot/

LinkPizza posted...
Free is a nice thought, but one that will never come true Just like the vroombra.
And here's where I reveal my cunning deception - "Vroomba" is actually a real product, cunningly disguised by myself as a hypothetical. It's real name is "Roomba" and you can, in fact, have one vacuum your home entirely for free.

LinkPizza posted...
You the disingenuous one if you really think things will be free for no reason.
Fortunately, I don't think that. I think they will be free for many reasons. I've articulated some of them in this post.

LinkPizza posted...
If they were true, many things would already be free.
You mean things like music, pictures, videos, stories, e-mail accounts, TV shows, video games, porn, online forums, video conferencing software, social media, podcasts, and news? Because I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there's this thing called "the internet" where all of the above is available for free, in quantities so large that people are literally creating and releasing it faster than any person could ever hope to consume it.

That's really the part of this you're refusing to acknowledge. Anything that can be digitized or automated quickly has its costs rounded down to zero. According to you that shouldn't be happening, because people always demand money... yet it is and has been for decades.

LinkPizza posted...
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?
No, I'm saying you'll already have plates available that your robot will make use of. Or hell, maybe it comes with its own full serving set just for convenience, whatever you want.

Unless you eat every meal off a paper plate, you don't pay for a new plate every single meal. I have no idea why you thought this was a good point to raise.

LinkPizza posted...
And what about meat? And cheese? And where do you get the seeds?
None of that requires human hands. Robots can tend the livestock and harvest the crops. We don't pay animals now for their meat or their cheese, nor plants for their seeds. There is no reason why that will change in the future. And all of those things reproduce themselves for free (which, you'll note, is the exact same process robots could be taking).

LinkPizza posted...
Especially since the computer might know if someone is playing aggressively, passively, offensively, or defensively
Please explain how those terms apply to the game of Go.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/01/21 4:25:47 AM
#152:




LinkPizza posted...
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.
Which a suitably advanced AI is just as capable of doing as humans.

LinkPizza posted...
Like, Im not sure it would try to make something new
You don't have to be sure, because it's not something that's unknown.

Yes, it would try and make something new. That's a simple statement of fact.

LinkPizza posted...
As for games like goat simulator and deer simulator, they were made by humans, AFAIK
And therefore are imitable by AI.

LinkPizza posted...
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.
"AI need to be watched because they're not perfect, but they will never make mistakes because they're perfect."

Do I about have the gist of your argument?

LinkPizza posted...
My entire purpose isnt my job. But thats where I go to talk to friends.
Maybe you should try talking to friends at somewhere that isn't work?

LinkPizza posted...
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
You realize that, if your job really is how you pass the time, you could simply just do that same task as a hobby in the future for free, right?

In an automated future, nobody's forcing you not to do something. If you really *want* to do a job, instead of socializing or pursuing a hobby for some reason, you could just do that same task. You wouldn't get paid for it, but you've said that you gain fulfillment from it, so you shouldn't need compensation. And if you do demand compensation, then you're not *actually* working because you find it enjoyable, you're working to fulfill needs that a fully automated future will fulfill for you.

LinkPizza posted...
By replicating it, are you agreeing that they are just ripping off other music, then?
I mean, humans do that already. If you're at all familiar with the music industry, sound engineers know exactly what sound patterns elicit positive responses in humans and can tailor songs to hit those patterns.

Here's Rob Paravonian doing a comedy routine on it with demonstrations of how so many popular songs follow the same chord patterns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

Again, I understand you're not a trained musician, but I am and I can tell you that music theory classes are all about understanding the patterns, such as chord progressions, used in various musical styles. There's a reason why the 1-4-5-1 chord progression is fucking everywhere and is the basis of blues and rock music.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/01/21 4:26:10 AM
#153:


LinkPizza posted...
It sounds more like you dont know how to run a business (or a big one, at least).
Kind of ironic given your statements in the topic so far.

LinkPizza posted...
Especially if you were struggling to keep it going or make enough.
Please explain to me, with everything you know about the nature of my business, its location, its clientele, its revenue, its expenses, and my practices in running it, exactly what upgrades I should have made but didn't. Make sure you be specific - after all, you made the claim that I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm sure you've already worked all this out.

LinkPizza posted...
But big businesses should always be thinking in the long run. And they usually have the money to do just that
And, not coincidentally, they're the ones you pretty much always see self-checkout lanes at.

LinkPizza posted...
Maybe some people could make one. But I dont think all the parts are all there, either.
Of course all the parts are all there - do you think a wizard conjures self-checkout lines out of existence?

Parts exist for anyone who feels like ordering them.

LinkPizza posted...
All kinds of crazy accidents happen all the time. They have tons of YouTube videos of them...
Oh, there's a Youtube video of this bizarre scenario you can't even describe where a bunch of AI have a spontaneous malfunction that humans wouldn't have or something? Well, that makes it easy! Just post the video of the AI mass car crash and you'll have proved your point.

LinkPizza posted...
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.
You have no proof that the corporation hasn't destroyed the world?

I do - go look out the window right now and you will notice that the world is still there, in an undestroyed state.

LinkPizza posted...
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.
When did I say that self-driving cars are perfect or cannot have accidents?

I simply said that the specific type of weird malfunction you can't even articulate but that you've convinced yourself is some dire threat is based entirely on your own fantasies rather than reality. Self-driving cars can get into normal accidents and I've never denied that; they just do so a lot less often than the average human, because they are better drivers.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/01/21 4:26:48 AM
#154:


LinkPizza posted...
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.
OK... so how does the presence of a human driver instead of an AI in this situation somehow change the scenario?

With what you've just laid out, you're going to have an accident whether it's humans driving or AI. The AI crash is, honestly, probably going to be less severe, because this network of cars is all talking to each other saying, "Oh crap, need to make an emergency lane change, please move over," where humans don't have the ability to do that.

And if the first car drives off, so what? The rest of the self-driving cars all have cameras recording what happened, including the license plate of the car that drove away. If there's an insurance issue, the owner of that car can be contacted and brought into the process as appropriate.

LinkPizza posted...
But Im sure self-driving cars would try not to hit each other, so
Then you're wrong, much as you have been about this whole scenario.

Self-driving cars will hit another self-driving car if they calculate it is the safest option available. For instance, if they have the option of hitting a pedestrian or another vehicle, they are programmed to choose the vehicle because it is less likely to result in a serious injury or a fatality. Notably, if you've ever taken a defensive driving course you'll know that's the exact advice given to humans in the same scenario: hit a vehicle instead of a person, swerve right into a ditch instead of left into oncoming traffic, hit a stationary object instead of an object moving towards you; hit an object moving the same way as you instead of a stationary object.

LinkPizza posted...
They probably easily can.
They probably easily can what?

If you're going to continue this ridiculous practice of not quoting what you're responding to, you at least need to provide a context or subject in your sentence so that I can figure out what you're talking about.

LinkPizza posted...
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
You keep saying, "might" or "may" or "probably" in your sentences, which implies that you both have no idea if what you're saying is true (it isn't) and are suggesting that it isn't a known fact (it is).

AI don't "look at" things the way humans do, because they don't see and focus on things the way we do. They take in everything within their field of view (which is 360 degrees for a self-driving car). They, unlike humans, can pick up details on everything happening around them. If a driver's body language or driving patterns are indicative of someone falling asleep, the self-driving car will be able to pick up on a human falling asleep and react accordingly far faster and more reliably than a human driver will.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/01/21 4:27:12 AM
#155:


LinkPizza posted...
And here you are quoting badly again to change my words.
Where?

Again, provide context to your quotes or I have no way to figure out what the hell you're referring to.

LinkPizza posted...
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
Spare me the Trump quotes. You did not give me the sentence.

Don't try and change what you actually said when your post bringing up stuff from the old topic is still right there in Post 109.

"Which is what I said in the other topic however long ago that was."
"But not how they would be secured without a driver like you said in (previous topic)..."
"And without a driver, since that's how you said it would be in that other topic, IIRC."

You're claiming I said all these things and bringing up a conversation that I have no way to reference. You didn't claim that a topic merely existed (which would have been fine), you expected me to answer for posts that you claim I wrote without actually providing quotes or references to the post in question. For a topic that's now literally years old, that is completely unreasonable.

LinkPizza posted...
Theres nowhere to safely strap them down so their chair doesnt move. So, obviously, they arent.
So how are they getting around the mandatory legal requirement enshrined in federal law in the Americans with Disabilities Act that requires them to provide service to handicapped people?

LinkPizza posted...
These are the actual facts
You are confusing your own ill-informed hypotheses with actual factual information. Please learn the definition of these words before you come back to the topic.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
05/04/21 5:21:46 AM
#156:


I would say that many. There are also people at local places that have their own special recipes. So super fancy places and local places. And even some of the restaurant chains have people who are better than some of their normal chefs. I think youre vastly underestimating how many local restaurants there are. Or how many of those special places there are. Or even how many chefs at chains will add their own special twist to the recipes. It changes more when you actually know how many chefs wont actually spill the beans on their special ingredient As for personal chefs, it depends. Its not always a rich person. Some people have friends or family members who will cook for them like that. It just depends on the person and their relationship. Like maybe a son cooks for his mom and other family members. Or someone cooks for their best friend who they have known since they were babies. And many husbands and wives may cook for each other if one is actually a good cook

Making the robots a network is actually a really bad idea. They can easily be hacked if on a network. Which actually makes the idea of robots even worse. Like a lot worse. As for fine tuning it, that might actually be pretty hard. Because not everyone knows how to describe what they want. AFAIK (according to what I read), tasting robots can only tasting what is in food. But they dont always know what you like more. You might say you want more of this or more of that, even though thats not what youre looking for. Happens to a lot of people. They may think they want more of one ingredient to get it to taste a certain way, but thats not correct because it makes a different taste when you add more. It might work for simple drinks. But not for ones with more ingredients. Not to mention, fine tuning usually only works when they order the same thing multiple times. Which may not always happen. Not to mention, some people go to different restaurants because of the way certain people make certain things. Having a robot make it means a make it could end up making everything taste the same, which is no fun Though it might be possible to make it so a robot cant use certain recipes outside of that restaurant But someone could also hack the robots, so And a hacked robot is no good...

I saw where you said better can be slower. But people dont want slower. They want faster. Most people already try to find the fastest way out already. And as I said earlier, Im not quoting because its too much. For example, youve sent like 7 post at once. And they equaled 43 different quotes. And Im not quoting all those and writing back to each one and sending them over the course of however long. Ill just write a big post. I only have so much free time Im willing to waste at work. And even then, dont act like youre a better quoter. Youve already taken a few of my quotes out of context by cutting them short. Or only taking a piece on certain quotes for whatever reason... You even do something simmilar close to the end of these quotes...

You say that its cost effective to get the new machines that are 10x cheaper, but that Wal-Mart and Target (who can definitely afford it) arent getting more because they cant afford it? Thats why I dont believe you. If it would save them money in the long run, theyd do it. They arent for a reason. I do have a few theories on why, but this is what Im saying. Youre saying they would be 10x cheaper. So, the stores that can afford should get them. Especially since bigger stores usually look for the most money, even over time. At the same time, youre saying my they arent, but have no real reason other than they cant afford them. But its hard to believe that Wal-Mart and Target dont have enough money...

And they are not personal anecdotes. Personal anecdote would be me telling a story that I think would relate to everyone. Like how when one person went to the doctor with certain symptoms, it was a certain disease. So I believe anyone with those symptoms have that disease. Or something like that. The people I talked to gave their opinion. Same as you and me. Though, it has more statistical value than what you said. As what you said makes no sense. Thinking everything will be free just because is pretty bad reasoning. And literally everyone knows it. Except for some people on this site like you... And while I know you gave your reasons, they're not actually good reasons. Because there's no way people just start giving stuff away for free just because their robots made it for them. That's not how it's ever worked. Whoever owns the robots not get way more profits. That's how it's going to work since that's how it always has worked...

You might be the one that should brush up on history instead. AI might be an idea, but it goes into something physical. Like a robot, computer, or technology or some kind. The problem is you think people will make things cheap and undercut a lot. Problem is, they still need to make money. Hence why gas stations only go so low even when their competitors are a little lower. Stores will only go so low, as they still want to make a profit. I mean, if other stores wanted to make prices lower, they would right now. The reason they dont is to make a profit. Maybe things get a little cheaper, but free is just a made up fantasy in your head. Even now, many things got cheaper to make over the years, but we still charge the same price for them as always. Because if its cheaper to make, you make more of a profit. Happens all the time... And people will buy the hell out of marked up shit. They do all the time. Especially if it carries a brand name... And AI will do whatever the owner tells them to do.

As for digital, people were pretty sure they would replace film for most people. And it actually probably helped their profits. Digital camera cost more. And they have to buy memories chips. Which were actually pretty expensive when they first came out. And people would still bring the digital cameras to the store to print stuff out. Still can these days, as well... Digital most likely got them more money. So, of course they would try to replace it... And I know the difference. Between currency and money. I wouldnt had written it like I did even I didnt know the difference. Im just sure the currency will be money, still
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
05/04/21 5:24:51 AM
#157:


The reason Im using that tense is because not all of them are built yet. Obviously Just because some know how to program doesnt mean they are do. Or all will And I dont care if an AI could do it better. If I have to give it control, it better be perfect. Again, if its not, then why would I want to give up control to it. And the fact is, people are still currently employed in a field an AI can work in. And even after they start making AI, people will still be employed in those fields. Whether its because they have their own business in the field and dont want to give it up, or because people dont trust the AIs as much as they trust humans (because many dont). Not to mention the people that would still have to oversee all of them. And the fact that some companies might instead make AI that assist instead of replacing. Which would actually be fine as long people can keep their jobs And if you think driving will be banned anytime soon, youre delusional. Many people love driving and wont give it up just because a car can drive itself. And many others dont even trust self-driving cars. And many wont even have the money for them. If would be a long time before driving became banned. And even then, people would probably fight to keep driving. Besides, they already know people can hack the cars, making it dangerous to ride in them And they still havent found a solution yet. I heard theyre working on it. But still havent fix it, apparently And while speeding is breaking the law, most cops (unless trying to get their quota) wont care about 5-10 over. Which can make a big deal on certain trips. Like when I drive 24 hours to go home. Going the speed limit the whole time would have actually made our trip take a couple hours longer. It can even help slightly with running late or shorter trips. And campaigning for higher speed limits probably wont do much because of how they choose speed limits.

As for not owning them, most people probably wont actually like that. Making them less likely to become popular. Most people like to leave stuff in their car. Like I know a bunch of people who leave their top or hat inside. Or lunchbox. And people forget stuff in cars all the time. Which would suck. Especially if you phone was what you forgot. With a phone, you can usually contact the driver to make sure you got it back, if someone was with you. It might be harder to contact the car. Especially since you probably had to use an app to get it. Though, they could be said for Uber. Though, you could probably call back for a taxi. And if you call you phone, the Uber driver might hear it and bring it back. Where a self-driving car might not. People also like certain things in cars like bags and clothes or whatever. Especially when going somewhere. Like going out to eat after school, or going somewhere after work. Which is why I mentioned owning them. People are already fine with owning cars that are in their garage or driveway. So, telling people cars wont have to take up space on their property isnt even something many people would care about. And its not like anything like owning a car. Also, what youre describing is basically a taxi/Uber/Lyft/etc type of service. Which we already have, and many people dont use daily And people still own cars even though we have those. So, having this service probably won't be a deterrent for people wanting to own their own car. Many people buy and fix up cars (especially classic cars) not only because they like the car, but to drive it. And many arent going to only want to drive it to a specialty track or place. Many just like driving. Not only that, but many people might not leave exactly on time. Or forget stuff. And have to go back all the time. I literally wont ever ride in a self-driving car. 100%... And many people wouldnt want to pay a monthly/yearly/etc subscription to get a car to take them places when they could just drive themselves for less And while you can work on both, splitting the work like that slows down both. So, if they really want one to come out faster, they would put more effort on one or the other. And it would probably be electric, so its easier to make electric self-driving cars instead of having to redo them all Also, to add to what I said earlier, there are also people who live in weird areas. Like down dirt roads which arent on maps. Or arent on maps as roads. 3 examples off the top of my head would be my friend back home, my BF, and my co-worker. My friend back home lived down this dirt road that even pizza guys had trouble finding. And its not really marked on any map. Even MapQuest use to have trouble finding it. My boyfriend lives on this property where you come off a road onto this like tiny backroad, then have to drive through a fence in the dirt to get to his house. Not exactly anything on navigation. My phone highlights the road and tells me to get there when leaving. And my co-worker recently moved to this land. And not only does my phone not actually go onto the land to his house (or the area it will be in). It doesnt even go the full way there. It stops early. So, that would also suck
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
05/04/21 5:25:56 AM
#158:


The reason Im using future tense is because they arent common yet. Obviously Again Im going to be using future tense since they arent common and in every store, so they are still a future tech as of right now. And its $25,000 for that? That seems like a rip-off. What can it even do? Its like a $25,000 vacuum that also can maybe pick up something as long as its not too heavy. And it didn't seem as autonomous as it should have been in a video I saw. The guy bumped a table. But instead of it taking a picture and repositioning itself, it got sad and had to wait for the guys to make it do that. Which seems less autonomous, tbh. And means it would need someone watching it, or checking up on it often... Also, if its that much and can barely do anything, then the ones that can actually do something will be expensive as fuck. It seems I sorely underestimated the price. That will probably be too expensive for normal people to buy for what it does. And what does it matter if it can learn (that one specifically). It can learn a bunch and still do nothing about it And I know the Vroombra a Roomba, which Im pretty sure is built on an automatic line. And still arent free. And quote expensive, tbh. Some are a little cheaper, but some are crazy expensive. Which happens with a bunch of tech. I actually thought theyd be cheaper by now, but nope Theyve been around for almost 20 years, and are still pretty expensive And you do realize you have to buy one, right? Because that means youre still paying for it. You do understand how that works, right? So you are paying for the Roomba. You do understand that, right? So, no. Its not free Where you even got that idea, I dont know. Where do you find free Roombas, because most people are out there paying for them And I explained why your reasons for thinking things will be free are pretty dumb and make no actual sense. Because the only ones who can make things free are the ones who own the robots to do work for them. And they wont, as they rather make bigger profits Another reason is because they wont spend millions of dollars to lose money. These AIs are going to be pretty costly. And normally, all the money they save by using these would go first to paying off the cost of the robots. And then, they would be profits to line their pockets. But why would they spend millions to get a bunch of Robots, and then give things away for free? The answer is, they wouldnt. Even if robots became common, they wouldnt make everything free. Else, the robots are a waste. The robots are suppose to help them get more money. Not make them lose it all Not to mention, with the amount of people who dont trust them, many people will avoid stores with them, only shopping at store without them.

And not all the things you listed are free. Well, unless youre stealing But were talking about legally. For example, many music services cost money like a monthly fee. Or the cost to buy CDs or songs. For pictures, it depends on what type of pictures. To print out pictures, you either pay a store or buy the materials to print as home. For stuff online, many have watermarks because youre basically stealing them from someone else. Videos on YouTube are free (except for the ones that arent). And even then, thats only because they still get paid from ads. If they didnt get ads, it wouldnt be free. And the only reason email (like Gmail) is free is because theyre making money by selling your personal information. So, not changing you makes them money. If they didnt sell your info, it would probably cost something. Stories also depend. Stories in books usually cost money. Either buying the book (or paying for a book subscription on things like Kindles or whatever). Fanfics are usually free, though not always. TV shows are usually on a cable subscription that you have to pay for. Or buy an antenna for. Or a streaming service. Video games are rarely free. Most cost money. And the price has recently risen. Maybe you should inform Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Steam that games are supposed to be free. Because I dont think they got that message. Only a few are ever free. And the amount is like a drop of water in the ocean of games Porn is free on certain sites. Many do have cost, like a subscription. Even the free ones. You dont have to pay it, but then you dont get all the videos. Its like a free sample at a store. Its large one, but still Online forums and social media actually sell your info, too, AFAIK. And have ads all over the place. Podcast are free If theyre on a free service. Some have moved to a paid service, and are only free if someone puts them somewhere else. And I think most video conferencing items are free, but I cant be sure. I dont use many. And you know what else isnt free? The internet. Which is where youre getting all you free stuff. Meaning that even if this stuff was free on the internet, it's actually not for you. And the only reason some stuff isn't being charged for is they still make money. If they weren't making money, many of these services wouldn't be free... So, did you bump your head? Or are you straight up lying by acting like all of this is free? So, Id hate to break it to you, but youre actually very wrong. Unless youre counting stealing as free. Because I was talking about legally So, Im not refusing to acknowledge anything. But you seem to be refusing to acknowledge reality at this point So those people demanding money for those things are actually getting money So, Im still right, and you oh so very wrong

As for the food, the robot can only come with so much. Also, I actually use quite a few paper plates (I do have my own reasons, though). But I think I meant plant in my post. That was my actually point. As you dont grow plates Autocorrect strikes again (I also thought that would be obvious since the next sentences asked about meat and cheese, but) And again, just because it doesnt require human hands doesnt mean its free. It just means more profit for the owners of the robots. Since like I said earlier, they wont pay millions of dollars to give things away while losing all their money. And if they knew that buying robots would basically make them lose all money, they also wouldnt do it. But they will buy robots because we will still have money. And again, maybe you keep forgetting how the world already works. We dont pay the animals or crops. We pay the farmer who owns them. Well, somebody does. We just normally pay the store who got it from someone who got it from the farmer. The farmer got paid because they were his animals and his crops. And they will still get paid from the same people. They just have to do less of the physical work themselves. Doesnt mean it will be cheaper for the people buying it from them. Why would it be? He can make the same amount of money while doing less Its weird that you keep bringing up paying the roombas or animals. Nobody ever thought that. You always pay the people who own these things. Like buying the roomba from the store, or buying the meat or animal products from the farmer. Its like youre not even trying to come up with something that makes sense. Glad I write these at work instead of wasting time at home writing these So, youre right. Nothing will change. We will still have to pay the farmer taking care of the animals and growing the crops. Do you understand now? And nothing will be free
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
05/04/21 5:27:19 AM
#159:


As for go, playing aggressively might mean capturing prisoners rather than trying to make a live string/group. Where someone going to the latter is probably playing more passively. Or you could be playing defensively, trying to stop them from taking your strings. Pretty obvious on how different people may have different styles. Just like how in chess, you can pay more offense or defense. Or aggressively or passively

As for video games, I dont see them every trying to do that. Just taking other games and smooshing them together If anything, they probably wont let the AI make the games. Theyll probably make the games and let the AI help or whatever Except its not a simple statement of fact since all they use to do before (and probably still do) and take other ideas and use those to make stuff. Like how they did with those stories and videos I saw It was just an absurd mix of everything it took in instead of using what it took in to create something new And being imitable is just another way of saying it can be copied by AI. Even though youre trying to prove that they wont be copying games. I already know they can be copied by AI, as thats what AI seems to do Also, I obviously dont think they are perfect. I think they wont make mistakes because the humans will be there to keep an eye on things, not because they are perfect. Because they are not. Which is what I said. Having some trouble reading? I said, 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. That bolded word is since. Its ties the sentence together and leads to why I dont think mistakes will be made. And that italicized sentence at the beginning is me saying they arent perfect. So, you thinking I said they wont make mistakes because theyre perfect makes no sense since I didnt say they were perfect. I think the humans working with them can find the mistakes so it wont make any. But its not perfect, so it would make mistakes on its own So it seems like you dont have the gist of my argument since it seems you clearly didnt read it

And I have some friends not at work. But theyre in another state. And I had some civilian friends, but most of them of trouble. Some were ok, but I still haven't seen many of them. I also have some friends I've hook-up with, but those friends feel a little different. Currently, the best friends are the ones I have at work. Even when I was working at the other job, the best friends I had were the ones I worked with. Makes sense since I spend so much time there. And they are just generally fun to be around. Why would I not hang out with them and force my self to find other friends who I probably wont like. Or wont want to be around. Military members and their spouses are pretty fun when you know them And we all like to hang out together when we can. It's easier at work since we will usually end up seeing each other at some point in the day...

I cant actually do my job as a hobby if AI took it. Nor would I want to. My job is debriefing crews after a flight and input everything into a digital system, as well. Theres a lot to it, but its not really something you can make a hobby. We also fix the mistakes of everybody else. Its a very specific job that would only really be doable for a plane flying on a military base. Its also not a fun hobby. I like my job. But its not something I do to kill boredom I actually normally listen to music or watch something on my fire or YouTube while doing it. Ive been doing it so long, I barely have to try So, no. I couldnt do it as a hobby in the future Nor would I ever want to do it for free If Im doing that job, I will be making money Just because I like my job doesnt mean I want to do it for free. But you probably didnt know what my job was, so it makes sense you think it can be done like a hobby. Though, thats also a stupid thought, anyway. There are probably many other jobs that cant be done as a hobby. And I would not really gain fulfillment from it, either. That said, my job won't go to AI for a while. Not only would the military not have the money for it (since even though the budget is higher, it's split between every branch, every base, every squadron, etc.). And then, that's you money for everything from equipment (like parts and tools), to TDYs, to gear for people (like clothes and boots), to everything else. Plus, the amount of training each would need. Since each case is special and needs to be taken as such. Especially on out jet as it's pile of crap that doesn't even make sense most of the time. In an fully automated future (which will never happen), well basically be slaves to whoever controls everything else. Why are you guys fighting to be slaves? Well be under the control of everybody who owns the AIs. And honestly, itll be closer to a dystopian future rather then this fantasy utopia you think it will be. People are just going to use the AI to control everyone else

And even though sound engineers can use certain sounds to elicit certain response, the songs can still sound like the band that plays them. It like how you hear a song and know whos singing or which band it is, even when youve never heard it before. They still have their own sound they made it with. You can even tell with those covers they do. Like Punk goes Pop or Punk goes Crunk. You can usually tell whos singing or playing because bands can still have unique sounds somehow Sometimes, its certain instruments that you dont hear often, or specific kind of voice. But it is noticeable to many people And you dont need to know many songs follow the same pattern. But they still add their own unique sound to each song Even when I played the flute, I noticed certain instruments that kind of played the same notes sometimes

As for your business, youre the one who said they owned a small business for seven years and was lucky if there's enough money in the business account to cover my expenses for that *month*. So, it sounds like you werent the best business owner by your own admission Thats based on what you said. I cant say what upgrades you should have made without knowing more. But obviously something was wrong if you were struggling most of the time. A business shouldnt always be struggling... At least, not from what Ive seen. My mom ran a couple of side businesses while also working her other job and never really seemed to run into that problem So, between the two of you, Id listen to her advice first. You can say I have no experience running a business, but I actually have some from her. I saw how she did basically everything from start to finish. And could even get help from her if I wanted to start something But if you want to change you story to you werent always struggling, I guess you could do that I cant tell you about your business, but I can tell you what you straight up told me
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
05/04/21 5:27:49 AM
#160:


As for the bigger businesses, youre right thats why I see the self-checkouts there. You mentioned how they are the ones normally with the self-checkout lanes. My question that still hasnt been answered is why theyre arent more, though? They have 4 self-checkouts, which are always busy. And like a couple cashiers. Why not take a couple of those always empty lanes and turn them into more self-checkout lanes? You can get more customers through faster. Which may even tempt some people to buy more since they know the lines may move faster since there are more lanes. But they dont And why is that? As for the parts, Im talking about the junkyard. Youd probably need a wizard to conjure up the parts there. People are always getting stuff from the junkyard. But it may be a while before you get al the parts needed to make a whole self-checkout from junkyard parts It you can even find the parts. Car parts are usually easier to find for many reasons. But its most likely different for self-checkout parts. Oh. And I was talking about parts in the junkyard. Not ordering them Which should have been evident since I just mentioned building a car out of junkyard parts. So, It would make sense that I was probably talking about doing the same with the self-checkout machine And even then, if theyre some super specific part you need, you may not be able to order if its a super old part that they dont really make anymore

Obviously, theres not a video of my scenario because, as I told you before, self-driving cars arent common yet. For my scenario to happen, self-driving cars would have to be at least semi-common. Its like youre not even reading what I post. I even said earlier, 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). Because it cant happen without enough self-driving cars on the road in the same place. So, if they ever became common enough, that could easily happen. My accident is basically a car swerving to avoid one car, causing another to swerve to avoid it. You were acting like Im talking about ramping off a tow truck and falling onto another car. And I had trouble articulating it because its hard to explain without showing you for me. I like to explain it visually. But that's harder to do through post. Especially when I would have shown people differently in real life. Just like how some people are better teaching or learning a certain way. I did explain it somewhat clearly, but you made it seem like an accident by swerving cars was impossible or something. But literally, here's what I was trying to say what would happen. Car 1 swerves toward car 2 to avoid an accident. Then car 2 swerves to avoid an accident by swerving into car 3. Maybe car 3 can't swerve, or doesnt swerve and gets hit. But by now, car 1 may already be further ahead after getting back on track. Its really that simple. As for the human driver, it could be that they didnt notice a car swerving at them if they were car 3. It also could be a self-driving car that had nowhere to swerve instead of a human driver, though, which they might try to avoid, causing them to get hit. Some roads dont allow for swerving, either. Could be outcoming traffic on the other side. Or trees. But I did explain that in the post you quoted, so Idk why you asked Either way, its a very real, since cars already do swerve to avoid accidents. And I know it would cause an accident either way. It could be an all self-driving car accident. Who knows? A human driver is added because it could change how the self-driving cars act But they dont need to be there. And while humans cant telepathically talk, they could still notice and try to make adjustments, as well Cant say whether it would be worse or not since it could change depending on what happens, though. And thats if the camera sees it. Something could have been in the way between the cars when the license plate would have been visible. It could also be hard to make it the cars were both swerving. And its possible other cars dont stop to hand over their recording if they werent involved. That being said, I still think self-driving cars will try to avoid hitting another to find a safer solution. But usually, the safest solution isnt just to run into one. So, I think Im right when I say they will usually try to avoid hitting each other Also, when I said I have no proof that it hasnt happened, Im talking about the mysterious company building an AI. But based on your previous post, I can see how you may have thought I was saying something different But all it would take is for the AI to become self-aware to make a real-life Skynet And I have no idea what companies are doing with the AIs already built...

And sorry. The They probably easily can was for the humans can probably easily tell if another is falling asleep. Normally, I would have put that at the end of the sentence. I was probably distracted. And Im not quoting anymore unless it gets down to 14 quotes. I was going to say 7, but 14 isnt too bad. But Im not doing 43 quotes. I'm not even quoting and it's taking me multiple post just to reply (6 to reply to 7)... I dont have time like that. Or the energy, tbh Besides, some of them get added together like this. Eventually, some of them will end up talking about something similar. So, this makes it all better but back to the topic, the reason I say may for the camera is because it could end up getting like a lens flare or something. Like maybe the window has a glare from the angle the camera sees it, but can be seen easier by the driver of said car looking at another car with a sleepy driver. So, its not a known fact as the technology could end up not being better. Its all about thinking of things is reality instead of acting like technology is perfect. Because it isnt And if they dont focus, then they arent better. They need to actually focus on things sometimes. Or else what they need to see might become blurry Literally and figuratively So it actually might not notice a human sleeping where a human actually does It could easily happen. Especially on a bright sunny day
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
LinkPizza
05/04/21 5:28:29 AM
#161:


And are you serious. You just quoted where I said, And here you are quoting badly again to change my words. And then asked, Where? I literally pointed out in the next sentence. The one you quoted after this quote. If you kept reading, context was literally provided. Finish reading the paragraph before asking questions where the answer is literally in front of you. Because I literally explained where why you quoted that badly. This is why quoting wouldnt work, anyway. Since you only quote part of what I said. And what Trump quotes are you talking about. I just explained what the whole quote said since you seemed to ignore half of it and twisted my words. And I did give you the sentence. It was first posted in post #139. The penultimate paragraph. Its literally there where I say the full sentence. So, yes. I did give you the sentence. You decided to only quote the first half to make it seem like I didnt remember our conversation. Where the second part of the quote that I guess you ignored showed that I remembered our conversation Go ahead and read it. Its plain as day. And post #109 was when I brought it up because we have literally talked about this before. Sorry you cant seem to remember our conversation. But I actually have somewhat of a decent memory and remember when we talked about it before. You said some of the same crap youre still spewing. It was wrong then, and still wrong now. You also even said my bus company would be getting self-driving bus soon. And then still havent. And arent even looking into them And the reason I cant reference is because I dont remember what the other topic was about. I just remember we went back and forth talking about buses since I worked at a bus station there. But to search that other site, I would need something to search for that isnt in a ton of other topics And even then, its still hard. Because I dont think the topic was actually about self-driving cars. It just turned into that And I would think you would hold those same beliefs. At least, you seemed to when we started this conversation as youre saying the same things. Unless you were just talking out of your ass back then, too And Its only a couple of years old. 2018 at the earliest Early 2020 at the latest And I mean early. Like it would have be one of the first two months, IIRC

As for getting around the safety rules, they arent everywhere yet. Like some of the small ones were just being showed off. One was being tested on a campus. If theres just being showed off or tested, its probably easy to get around. Also, if you read my other post, I said, 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. Money can actually solve a ton of problems. Or lying. And as long as you can keep the bigger buses running, as well (that do support wheelchairs), then no one can complain yet Or if they send out personal rides for them for a little Though they may cost more And Im not confusing my ill-informed hypotheses with actual factual information, because youre the one with the ill-informed hypotheses. Mine are at least based on logic. Your is based on the fantasy future you want, instead of what will most likely happen So, you should grab a dictionary and learn the words since you seem to be confusing them yourself
---
Official King of Kings
Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Sarcasthma
05/04/21 5:39:04 AM
#162:


God damn, look at those thicc blocks!

---
What's the difference between a pickpocket and a peeping tom?
A pickpocket snatches your watch.
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:17:08 AM
#163:


LinkPizza posted...
I would say that many.
That many what?

LinkPizza posted...
There are also people at local places that have their own special recipes. So super fancy places and local places. And even some of the restaurant chains have people who are better than some of their normal chefs. I think youre vastly underestimating how many local restaurants there are. Or how many of those special places there are. Or even how many chefs at chains will add their own special twist to the recipes. It changes more when you actually know how many chefs wont actually spill the beans on their special ingredient
At a certain point, it won't matter because an AI can simply experiment until it gets a comparable result, which is how things like GANs work.

LinkPizza posted...
Some people have friends or family members who will cook for them like that. It just depends on the person and their relationship. Like maybe a son cooks for his mom and other family members. Or someone cooks for their best friend who they have known since they were babies. And many husbands and wives may cook for each other if one is actually a good cook
Cool. And for the other 99% of the population that doesn't fit in these categories, a robot will do the same job or better.

LinkPizza posted...
Making the robots a network is actually a really bad idea. They can easily be hacked if on a network.
Which is why no banks are connected to the internet - can you imagine the disaster if banks were network and could be easily hacked?

Oh, wait, nevermind, all banks are networked. If a bank can manage a secure system despite handling some of the most sensitive information a person is likely to have, I'm pretty sure a robot that will remembers how you like your steak cooked will be pretty safe.

LinkPizza posted...
Having a robot make it means a make it could end up making everything taste the same, which is no fun
You can ask a robot to make a recipe differently.

Again, you're vastly underestimating the scope and scale of modern computational power if you think a robot can only learn to cook one thing one way. A cooking network could store the cooking knowledge of hundreds of the world's finest chefs. It could cook you a three-star meal every single night, according to the recipes it learned studying master chefs and not once would it need to repeat a meal if you didn't want it to. You could compare how the same meal can be cooked differently.

And no, you don't need to guide it by saying something like, "Add more cilantro to this meal next time." - you could if you wanted to, but you could just as easily tell the AI, "I liked the way you made it last time better." That's very useful feedback for an algorithm and helps it zero in on how you actually like your meals prepared.

LinkPizza posted...
I saw where you said better can be slower. But people dont want slower. They want faster.
People "want" a lot of things, but aren't willing to pay the cost.

People say they don't want clothes made in sweatshops, but will still race to buy shirts on sale that could not possibly have been made ethically with the price tag they want. People say they want to stop air pollution and global warming, then balk when they realize an electric car is more expensive than the basic model. People talk about how terrible companies like Wal-Mart or EA or Amazon are, but those companies are still making massive profits year-over-year, so clearly people don't hate them enough to actually stop buying their stuff.

If Company A offers a human checkout and rival Company B offers an automated one, yet Company B is charging half the price of Company A, Company B *will* be more successful and that is true even if Company A's checkout is faster.

LinkPizza posted...
And even then, dont act like youre a better quoter.
I am by default, because I'm the only one who is actually using quotes properly at this point.

You keep complaining about how much work it is to quote somebody - dude, it takes two seconds. You highlight the part of the post that you're already reading and writing a response to that you want to respond to and click a little button at the bottom. Bam - done. That's the effort you're saying is too much work, despite writing up these massive walls of text.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:17:40 AM
#164:


LinkPizza posted...
You say that its cost effective to get the new machines that are 10x cheaper, but that Wal-Mart and Target (who can definitely afford it) arent getting more because they cant afford it?
Where did I say that Wal-Mart and Target specifically can't afford automated checkouts?

LinkPizza posted...
If it would save them money in the long run, theyd do it. They arent for a reason. I do have a few theories on why, but this is what Im saying. Youre saying they would be 10x cheaper. So, the stores that can afford should get them. Especially since bigger stores usually look for the most money, even over time. At the same time, youre saying my they arent, but have no real reason other than they cant afford them.
You're deliberately misconstruing my arguments at this point. This is where actually quoting what you're responding to would help you, because it would highlight that you're getting two different points confused.

I said - in response to a different tangent you went off on - that small stores cannot afford automated checkouts because the costs are front-loaded. Wal-Mart and Target are not small stores. That's not a difficult point to understand.

You'll also note that every Wal-Mart and Target you go in today has automated checkout lanes. They do keep some human cashiers on hand - and I already explained the reason why, if you actually go back and read my points on the subject - but not nearly as many as they once did.

LinkPizza posted...
And they are not personal anecdotes. Personal anecdote would be me telling a story that I think would relate to everyone.
A personal anecdote is you sharing your experience. That's it.

And that's exactly what you did, whether you want to admit it or not. Even if you talked to everyone you know, that is not statistically significant (nevermind talking about sampling bias), nor relevant to the debate.

If you don't see the problem with what you did, I'll counter by saying I asked everyone I know and everyone in the city I live in and they all agree with me on every one of my points. Now do you think that's a valid way for me to prove my point?

LinkPizza posted...
That's how it's going to work since that's how it always has worked...
This is basically your argument in a nutshell and it proves how shortsighted it is.

It's confirmation bias incarnate - the idea that just because something has always held true, it will continue to hold true in the future, despite the fact that truths underpinning it are changing. 500 years ago, someone would tell you that the only way you could ever lead a country is by being born into the royal family or leading a violent overthrow of the king. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history. 150 years ago, people would tell you that horses were one of a country's most important asset because of their critical importance to agriculture, transportation, and warfare. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history. 70 years ago, people - including some computer experts - would tell you that there was no reason why anyone would ever need to own a personal computer. Why? Because it's always been that way for the entirety of human history.

Things change. Always. Even big things change. Suggesting that "well, money has always been around, so money always will be around" is showing wilful blindness to the possibility of change when the fundamental rules of commerce break down.

LinkPizza posted...
And literally everyone knows it. Except for some people on this site like you...
-Says "literally everyone knows it"
-Immediately gives example of people who correctly identify it as false.

Notably, even if this is true you are once again engaging in a logical fallacy - specifically the Alleged Certainty fallacy. Even if you were correct and everyone did believe your point was true (they don't), that wouldn't make it any more correct (because it isn't).

If everyone believed that lemons were purple, that wouldn't suddenly make any of them correct.

LinkPizza posted...
Because there's no way people just start giving stuff away for free just because their robots made it for them. That's not how it's ever worked.
That's literally how it works right now. As an example, you can go on Youtube and listen to a song written by a robot for free. You can download 3D models that people have made - with the assistance of robots - for free. The internet has widely expanded the availability of "free" stuff, to the point where it is already possible to live a fulfilling and complete life while expending zero dollars beyond what is needed to pay for your food and lodgings.

And you think robots, AI, and automation aren't going to expand that trend even further? That goes against every economic trend on the subject we've seen in the last 30 years.

LinkPizza posted...
The problem is you think people will make things cheap and undercut a lot. Problem is, they still need to make money.
To do what?

If the robots are mining all the materials, doing all the fabrication, transporting all the goods, and handling any repairs/disposal, who do you need to pay? There are no humans involved in that process that require compensation.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:18:17 AM
#165:


LinkPizza posted...
As for digital, people were pretty sure they would replace film for most people. And it actually probably helped their profits.
That's why Kodak, the leading film company of the 20th century and a former Fortune 500 company, saw huge profits in their shift to digita-

Oh, no, wait, they went bankrupt in 2012 and were forced to exit the photography industry altogether, with the shift to digital being cited as the primary cause.

LinkPizza posted...
The reason Im using that tense is because not all of them are built yet.
The reason why you're using what tense?

This sentence is missing information. Quote what you're responding to or provide enough context such that it is not ambiguous.

LinkPizza posted...
Just because some know how to program doesnt mean they are do.
Um... what?

LinkPizza posted...
And I dont care if an AI could do it better. If I have to give it control, it better be perfect.
This is such a ridiculous point of view.

Like, if you had to drive somewhere in a foreign city where you didn't know where anything was and your friend who actually knew the city offered to drive for you instead, would you adamantly refuse to let him drive because he didn't know every street perfectly? No? Then perhaps you can see why it's really stupid to demand AI be perfect before letting them replace humans at tasks they are objectively superior at performing.

LinkPizza posted...
And the fact is, people are still currently employed in a field an AI can work in. And even after they start making AI, people will still be employed in those fields.
Luddites said the same thing back in the original fight about automation - that the industrial process simply couldn't replace the heart and soul of a human worker and that people would demand the higher quality that came with something individually crafted by a human.

We know how that argument eventually turned out (hint: the Luddites were wrong).

LinkPizza posted...
And if you think driving will be banned anytime soon, youre delusional.
At no point did I say driving would be banned anytime soon, just that it almost certainly will be at some point in the future.

You should quote the posts you're responding to so you don't make embarrassing errors like this.

LinkPizza posted...
Which would actually be fine as long people can keep their jobs
Point blank: they won't. Industrial vehicles will be some of the first to be automated, because there is a greater financial driver for it. If a company can replace a $60,000 a year long-haul trucker with an automated truck that can drive 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with no need for time off for illness, vacation, or even sleep and whose only costs are in the initial purchase and in vehicle maintenance that would need to be performed anyways, you can bet that they're going to make the switch in a heartbeat.

And there's really nothing you can do to stop this from happening. Automation is technology, which is fundamentally just an idea and you can't ban an idea. This is going to happen and it's going to happen a lot sooner than you seem to think it will, so I suggest you start getting used to the idea.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:18:49 AM
#166:




LinkPizza posted...
It can even help slightly with running late or shorter trips.
At the risk of increasing the probability and consequences of getting in a crash, sure.

You're honestly making the point for AI drivers even stronger with this side-tangent claiming that you should be allowed to break the law because you can't budget your driving time correctly. If you need to speed because you're running late, maybe leave yourself enough time to get to where you're going on schedule next time.

LinkPizza posted...
As for not owning them, most people probably wont actually like that.
What makes you think that?

You say "many people" or "most people" all over the place in your post, which is you making assumptions with no data backing them up. This is another logical fallacy - specifically, the False Consensus effect.

The simple fact is, car ownership is dropping - particularly new car ownership. 2010 was the rate of highest vehicle ownership in North America; since then, for the first time in history, car ownership rates have actually declined. The rise of ride sharing apps like Uber and car shares like Zipcar is seeing fewer people actually buying their own car.

LinkPizza posted...
And people forget stuff in cars all the time. Which would suck.
If an AI is driving the car, it would alert you the second you tried to leave if something got left behind.

Which is a definite boon given that something that people occasionally forget in their car is a sleeping baby and there have been numerous tragic instances of babies overheating in cars because a parent forgot to drop them off at daycare before heading off to work.

LinkPizza posted...
Like going out to eat after school, or going somewhere after work.
If you desperately need to store something in a car short term, you would be able to do so in this model (in the same way that if you use something like Zipcar, the car is yours until you are ready to release it back to the "fleet").

LinkPizza posted...
People are already fine with owning cars that are in their garage or driveway.
I'm not. I live on an island and have to own two vehicles because there's no car ferry between my home and the mainland. I pay for parking on the mainland for my car and have a garage for my home. If I could get rid of both vehicles and replace them with self-driving autos, I'd do it in a heartbeat. It would save me money in parking and maintenance, I'd get another 500 square feet in my home to remodel into actual living space, and I'd lose nothing in the bargain.

Meanwhile, there is an entire class of people for whom car ownership is not viable due to costs and who rely on public transit to get anywhere. With self-driving cars and the death of car ownership, the full advantages of having a car could finally be in reach for those people, adding hours onto their day from not having to constantly wait for/on a bus.

LinkPizza posted...
And many arent going to only want to drive it to a specialty track or place. Many just like driving.
There's that "many people" quote again. You're starting to sound like Donald Trump at this point.

And, frankly, the world doesn't care if you "just like driving". You can do it on a specialty track if it's that important to you. I'm sure there were people who "just liked riding horses" back when those were the most common transportation method; that doesn't mean horse riders are allowed on city roads today.

LinkPizza posted...
I literally wont ever ride in a self-driving car. 100%.
The day may come when you don't have a choice.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:19:27 AM
#167:




LinkPizza posted...
And many people wouldnt want to pay a monthly/yearly/etc subscription to get a car to take them places when they could just drive themselves for less
A Zipcar membership currently costs $70 a year for the membership itself and cars can be as low as $14 an hour (only for the time you use them), which includes gas, insurance, maintenance, and roadside assistance. That's actually less on a per-km basis than owning a car is and that price only goes down if the cars are self-driving (insurance and roadside assistance get cheaper on account of not having to be used as much, while fuel and maintenance go down with the shift to electric).

LinkPizza posted...
And while you can work on both, splitting the work like that slows down both.
Both of what?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.

LinkPizza posted...
The reason Im using future tense is because they arent common yet.
What aren't common yet?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.

LinkPizza posted...
they are still a future tech as of right now
They literally aren't. Something you can buy today is, by definition, not future tech.

LinkPizza posted...
And its $25,000 for that? That seems like a rip-off. What can it even do?
Whatever you want to teach it to do.

LinkPizza posted...
And means it would need someone watching it, or checking up on it often... Also, if its that much and can barely do anything, then the ones that can actually do something will be expensive as fuck. It seems I sorely underestimated the price. That will probably be too expensive for normal people to buy for what it does.
At the moment? Yes. This is still early days for those sorts of robots.

In the same way that early computers and cell phones were hideously-expensive rich person toys, that's where this particular field of learning robots is at right now. The point is not that they could take over every human job tomorrow, it's that the tech is out there and it's being fine-tuned into something that will be more productive and less expensive in the years to come.

LinkPizza posted...
And you do realize you have to buy one, right? Because that means youre still paying for it. You do understand how that works, right? So you are paying for the Roomba. You do understand that, right?
You do understand that's not what I said, right? You do understand you're mixing up multiple different arguments right now, right? You do understand that, right?

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:20:12 AM
#168:




LinkPizza posted...
Where do you find free Roombas, because most people are out there paying for them
In the automated future where I talked about the presence of a robot that could mine materials for and construct a Roomba with no external aid.

If you were quoting the posts you were responding to, you'd probably understand this better instead of getting confused by mistakenly conflating multiple different arguments and responding to a point you think I made, but never actually did.

LinkPizza posted...
And they wont, as they rather make bigger profits
Which doesn't explain why there's more free shit available now than there ever has been at any point in human history.

Your point of view only makes sense in a magical world where, ironically, everyone behaves like robots and there is no altruistic desire to better the human race, despite that being a fairly common element in fields of scientific development.

LinkPizza posted...
Not to mention, with the amount of people who dont trust them, many people will avoid stores with them, only shopping at store without them.
"Many people".

That's a sentiment that will last precisely as long as it takes for them to notice that the robot store is selling things at half the price as the human store, because they don't have to pay wages to their workers and can therefore sell things at a price that no human-run store could hope to match.

Again, the Luddites thought people would be willing to support businesses that refused to use industrial-manufactured goods. They were wrong then, just as you are wrong now.

LinkPizza posted...
And not all the things you listed are free.
Literally everything I listed can be found online, for free, right now, completely legally.

LinkPizza posted...
For example, many music services cost money like a monthly fee.
Youtube doesn't and there's lots of songs on there that the creators put up for anyone to listen to.

LinkPizza posted...
For pictures, it depends on what type of pictures.
Google Image Search can get you pictures on whatever subject you like and they are 100% free to download.

LinkPizza posted...
To print out pictures, you either pay a store or buy the materials to print as home.
Then you're not paying for the pictures, you're paying for the material to print them out.

As it turns out, most people don't need hard copies of their pictures.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:20:37 AM
#169:




LinkPizza posted...
For stuff online, many have watermarks because youre basically stealing them from someone else.
And many more do not, because they are available for anyone to use.

LinkPizza posted...
Videos on YouTube are free (except for the ones that arent). And even then, thats only because they still get paid from ads. If they didnt get ads, it wouldnt be free.
But they do get ads, so they are free.

LinkPizza posted...
And the only reason email (like Gmail) is free is because theyre making money by selling your personal information. So, not changing you makes them money. If they didnt sell your info, it would probably cost something.
But, as it turns out, it currently costs nothing.

LinkPizza posted...
Stories also depend. Stories in books usually cost money.
But the ones online are usually free.

LinkPizza posted...
TV shows are usually on a cable subscription that you have to pay for.
Except for the ones available online, for free.

LinkPizza posted...
Video games are rarely free.
https://store.steampowered.com/search/?maxprice=free

Look, free games! Over 10,000 of them!

LinkPizza posted...
And the price has recently risen.
The average price of a video game has literally never been lower. The price has only "recently risen" if you're looking at top-end, triple-A titles.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:21:14 AM
#170:




LinkPizza posted...
Porn is free
Which is an admission that I'm right.

LinkPizza posted...
Online forums and social media actually sell your info, too, AFAIK. And have ads all over the place.
And are free.

LinkPizza posted...
Podcast are free
Thank you for agreeing with me again.

LinkPizza posted...
And I think most video conferencing items are free, but I cant be sure
Sure you can - by checking yourself. If you're going to contest the point, at least bring some actual evidence to bear.

And you seem to have completely missed the fact that just because there's paid versions of many of the above items doesn't disprove my original point, which is that you can get all of the above, completely for free.

LinkPizza posted...
And you know what else isnt free? The internet.
If you can't afford ~$30.00 a month for an entry-level internet plan, you have much bigger problems in your life than anything we're talking about in this topic.

LinkPizza posted...
If they weren't making money, many of these services wouldn't be free...
But they are making money and it is free.

LinkPizza posted...
So, did you bump your head?
Did you?

You literally just admitted there are free options for everything I said was available for free. You literally just spent an entire topic admitting I'm right and you apparently were too blind to even realize it. You spend several sentences at the end of this paragraph - where, again, you repeatedly admitted I was right - trying to save face and claim I was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm right and you explicitly admitted so yourself.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:21:46 AM
#171:




LinkPizza posted...
Unless youre counting stealing as free. Because I was talking about legally
Were you? Legalities didn't seem to trouble you in that discussion about speeding up there.

LinkPizza posted...
But I think I meant plant in my post.
You "think" you meant plant? Shouldn't you know what your own argument is?

If you aren't even sure what you were supposed to be saying, it clearly wasn't a very strong argument to begin with.

LinkPizza posted...
We dont pay the animals or crops. We pay the farmer who owns them.
Only true if there actually is a farmer that owns them.

Even today, you can get meat for free - just head out to your local natural area of choice, bring down a deer and enjoy free venison for the winter. Or head out to the ocean, haul in some fish and have a nice dinner.

LinkPizza posted...
Doesnt mean it will be cheaper for the people buying it from them. Why would it be?
Because they will be in competition with others who are willing to subside on a lower profit margin.

Which, y'know, is basic economics that appears to have gone over your head.

LinkPizza posted...
We will still have to pay the farmer taking care of the animals and growing the crops. Do you understand now? And nothing will be free
Until the robots can take over the work, at which point it will absolutely be free.

You keep contesting this, but it doesn't make you any less wrong.

LinkPizza posted...
As for go, playing aggressively might mean capturing prisoners rather than trying to make a live string/group. Where someone going to the latter is probably playing more passively. Or you could be playing defensively, trying to stop them from taking your strings.
Please demonstrate that you know what a string is. Also, please explain how the play-styles you just referenced constitute "playing aggressively" and how that pertains to AI play.

LinkPizza posted...
As for video games, I dont see them every trying to do that.
Trying to do what?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:22:32 AM
#172:




LinkPizza posted...
Theyll probably make the games and let the AI help or whatever
If they want to, sure.

No one is saying that humans will be *barred* from doing these things in the future, simply that they will do it as hobbyists rather than because they have to have a job in order to survive.

LinkPizza posted...
Except its not a simple statement of fact since all they use to do before (and probably still do) and take other ideas and use those to make stuff.
What isn't a simple statement of fact?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.

LinkPizza posted...
Like how they did with those stories and videos I saw It was just an absurd mix of everything it took in instead of using what it took in to create something new
Sure... because you're looking at a present day AI, while talking about future tech and making the bizarre assertion that they're one and the same.

That's sort of like saying that because my computer doesn't have a 100 terrabyte hard drive *right now* I will never be able to own a computer that has a 100 terrabyte hard drive.

Can an AI program a decent video game today with no human interaction? No, that technology is decades in the future right now. Which is why this entire tangent was predicated on occurring in a fully automated future, something that isn't going to happen any time soon. You seem to have forgotten that and are pretending like this discussion about video game tech is based on current-day AI, not future-AI.

LinkPizza posted...
Also, I obviously dont think they are perfect. I think they wont make mistakes because the humans will be there to keep an eye on things, not because they are perfect.
Ah, so your argument is, "AI aren't perfect but will never make mistakes, because the humans watching them are perfect."

That's impressive because you managed to construct an entire argument based on two incorrect pretenses.

LinkPizza posted...
And I had some civilian friends, but most of them of trouble.
Please translate this sentence into English.

LinkPizza posted...
Why would I not hang out with them and force my self to find other friends who I probably wont like.
You tell me - you're the one who's suggesting that the only way you can interact with your friends is through work. If that is not the case, then there's no problem with you not having a job to do in the automated future. You'll still be able to hang out with your friends, it just won't be at work - something you've already admitted is not a precondition to you hanging out.

LinkPizza posted...
I cant actually do my job as a hobby if AI took it. Nor would I want to.
Then what's the problem?

You're behaving like a toddler at this point. "I wanna do my job!" "Then you can keep doing it as a hobby." "No! I don't wanna do it as a hobby, I want someone to make me do it!"

Seriously, if your job isn't your ideal way of passing time, then a fully automated future (which will eventually happen) is an upgrade, because you can start doing whatever you do like. Hobbies - old and new - hanging out with friends, visiting exotic destination in your self-driving vehicle, all for free. You have no reason to cower in fear of the future.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:23:02 AM
#173:




LinkPizza posted...
Why are you guys fighting to be slaves? Well be under the control of everybody who owns the AIs.
Nobody owns "AI". Again, "AI" is an idea and you cannot control an idea. Nobody owns ideas; only goods and ways that idea is expressed. This is why, for instance, Microsoft cannot stop third party word processors that can create .docx files. If someone has figured out how to write code that can do that, Microsoft cannot claim ownership of that code; the only code Microsoft owns is the code it itself has written. Hence why there are several completely free "pseudo-Office" program suites available online that perform largely the same function as Microsoft Office and are even fully compatible with it, but do not require you to pay Microsoft a subscription fee.

LinkPizza posted...
And even though sound engineers can use certain sounds to elicit certain response, the songs can still sound like the band that plays them.
Which AI is already capable of mimicking flawlessly, hence why we have "new" songs from Nirvana despite Kurt Cobain having been dead for over 25 years.

LinkPizza posted...
As for your business, youre the one who said they owned a small business for seven years and was lucky if there's enough money in the business account to cover my expenses for that *month*. So, it sounds like you werent the best business owner by your own admission Thats based on what you said.
No, that's based on your own incorrect interpretation of my words.

The reason I make little money on my small business is because:
a) I am in a market with few customers are available
b) My business is in an industry where profit margins are typically very slim, unless you happen to be one of the "big business" equivalents
c) This is not my main source of income, so profit is not of paramount importance to me

That's it. You really shouldn't make those sorts of wild assumptions on something you do not know about unless you want to look foolish as a result.

LinkPizza posted...
You can say I have no experience running a business, but I actually have some from her.
Oh, is that how it works? I guess that means I have experience being a professional hockey player, because I watch them every Saturday.

LinkPizza posted...
My question that still hasnt been answered is why theyre arent more, though? They have 4 self-checkouts, which are always busy. And like a couple cashiers. Why not take a couple of those always empty lanes and turn them into more self-checkout lanes? You can get more customers through faster. Which may even tempt some people to buy more since they know the lines may move faster since there are more lanes. But they dont And why is that?
Good question, given that you've already conceded that the self-checkout lanes are popular and, therefore, work. I suggest it's better aimed at the executives of those stores - they probably have the cost-benefit analyses to answer your concerns.

LinkPizza posted...
And I was talking about parts in the junkyard. Not ordering them Which should have been evident since I just mentioned building a car out of junkyard parts.
Sorry, I didn't realize you were trying to win the debate by heavily constraining the bounds so as to make any conclusion ultimately pointless.

In that case, I'll counter by saying that you can build a computer out of parts from an electronics catalogue but you could never build a car from that same catalogue.

LinkPizza posted...
Obviously, theres not a video of my scenario because, as I told you before, self-driving cars arent common yet. For my scenario to happen, self-driving cars would have to be at least semi-common. Its like youre not even reading what I post.
I'm reading what you post, I'm just deliberately filtering out the nonsense.

You're making an unfounded assertion based on future self-driving cars - the capabilities of which aren't even known at this point since, by your own admission, you're talking about technology that's decades in the future - that isn't backed up by anything grounded in reality and is your own hypothetical that you've made up and are now expecting others to accept as valid. If you want me to believe this scenario has a basis in reality, you'll need proof that it's actually a valid concern. Proof that you don't have and CAN'T have, because it *isn't* a valid concern.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:23:36 AM
#174:




LinkPizza posted...
My accident is basically a car swerving to avoid one car, causing another to swerve to avoid it.
Which human drivers do as well, so this isn't a valid complaint to make against AI. You actually do a great job at scuttling your own argument starting here:

LinkPizza posted...
Either way, its a very real, since cars already do swerve to avoid accidents.
...by admitting that this is an extant problem and therefore not an example of AIs making things worse. And here:

LinkPizza posted...
Cant say whether it would be worse or not since it could change depending on what happens, though.
...by admitting that you don't even know if this would be worse than a human accident (it wouldn't).

LinkPizza posted...
And thats if the camera sees it.
Self-driving car cameras have full 360 degree view. They have to in order for the car to function.

LinkPizza posted...
And its possible other cars dont stop to hand over their recording if they werent involved.
Leaving the scene of an accident is a crime. Or are you back to arguing that legalities don't matter now that it doesn't benefit your argument?

LinkPizza posted...
Like maybe the window has a glare from the angle the camera sees it, but can be seen easier by the driver of said car looking at another car with a sleepy driver.
Easily countered by saying you could have a glare that a human driver can't see through but an AI camera can.

LinkPizza posted...
So, its not a known fact as the technology could end up not being better.
It is a known fact because the technology is *already* better and is continually improving at a rate multiple orders of magnitude faster than humans improve via evolution.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109
05/09/21 4:24:04 AM
#175:




LinkPizza posted...
It could easily happen.
No, it couldn't. You claiming that it could is simply proving that you do not understand how this technology works.

LinkPizza posted...
And are you serious.
About what?

Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this.

LinkPizza posted...
Sorry you cant seem to remember our conversation.
I am not going to remember the details of a conversation I had with an internet rando multiple years ago. If you can remember every online conversation you've ever had, multiple years after it took place, good for you but I have other things that tend to take priority in my memory.

LinkPizza posted...
You also even said my bus company would be getting self-driving bus soon
I can categorically say I did not.

If you want to contest that, let's see your source. Something more reliable than your memory, please, given that you've already misremembered several discussions within this topic, which is several years newer than the conversation you're referencing.

LinkPizza posted...
And Its only a couple of years old. 2018 at the earliest Early 2020 at the latest And I mean early. Like it would have be one of the first two months, IIRC
This makes me doubt that memory you seem so proud of.

You can remember details of a conversation that happened multiple years ago, but not what year it happened?

LinkPizza posted...
If theres just being showed off or tested, its probably easy to get around.
Some are presently in active service and are driving regular routes.

LinkPizza posted...
And Im not confusing my ill-informed hypotheses with actual factual information, because youre the one with the ill-informed hypotheses. Mine are at least based on logic.
The "logic" that "money" allows a city to dodge federal law?

I'm not sure if you're up to speed on the ADA, but it doesn't just require that handicapped people be provided service, it requires that their service not be appreciably different than what would be provided to an able-bodied individual. You can't just "call a spare ride" for them or say that they have to catch the big bus that will be along in ten minutes; if you are providing transportation, you must be able to transport individuals in wheelchairs with no difference in response time to an able-bodied person.

---
Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4