Poll of the Day > Controversial Opinion #4: Automation

(+) Yeah! (+)

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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
---

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
---

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
---

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
---

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
---

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
---

God damn, look at those thicc blocks!

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Please do me a favor and read before posting statements like, "I need context." Because almost every time you say that, context was in the next sentence or two. At the very least, context clues will be there. As you'll see in other post, no matter how much you whine, I'm not quoting 91 post. I probably won't even quote 35, tbh...

The first post was supposed to say I wouldn't say that many. As for what I was talking about, it should be obvious. I started with what you started with, which was the chefs... And you next part you quote is about chefs (which is right after the first quote, as well), so should be obvious, but ok... But anyway, The AI might not be able to. You can copyright recipes to an extent. But how the law works is different from normal copyright laws. That said, the laws for copyrighting recipes is always changing. And will probably change when AI that can make certain food based off other foods become popular. Especially since that would cost restaurants money. Not to mention, restaurants keep make food a certain way to give it a certain taste. So, most restaurants won't take to an AI learning how to cook their $20 burger to sell at McDonalds for a couple bucks. Not to mention, some people go to certain restaurants for food cooked to taste a certain way. If you've gone to other restaurants, then you know that certain foods at certain recipes may have a more specific taste. And many restaurants aren't going to want their recipe to be used at other places. And I think the law will uphold that. Or riots might ensue. And 99% percent of the population in way too high of a number for people who don't have someone to cook for them. It's much less... Just based on how many people cook for a living and take cooking classes (even something like Home Economics)... Or learn to cook from family or at family events. If you can't cook, cool. But that's not the same for everybody... And then some people just like cooking and stuff... Or eating their own food.

Not only that. But sometimes, the reason people like something is because a certain person cooked it for them. Not because of the food itself. Or wants to taste the authentic dish instead of having it the way they like it. Or having it the way a specific person cooks it. Some people even like little imperfections. Like not something they'd ask for. But something they like because it's that one person who did it. And imperfections aren't only for food. It's even in art. Not only that, but people like different versions of the same thing sometimes. Like maybe you want a different version of your favorite dish because most of the restaurants make it differently. But the stupid AI would probably keep making it the same. And that gets really boring. The reason I go to different restaurants is to try a different version of the same things sometimes. How do certain burgers taste here compared to here. Lots of people like to try different versions of stuff... The problem with asking a robot to make it differently is you may not know what you actually want that's different. For example, at different burger places, many people can tell it taste different, but not really sure why. So, it would be hard to say other than make it like at this restaurant. Which you probably wouldn't be able to do from your home robot since that would cost restaurant money, which will still be a thing... And I'm not underestimating the scope. You're overestimating everything. Thinking robots will always be allowed to make food based on restaurant's taste You're also overestimating people's abilities to tell what tastes make things taste differences....

Banks have gotten hacked, though. And often. Here's an article about it:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/012117/cyber-attacks-and-bank-failures-risks-you-should-know.asp

And there are tons more on the internet. The article literally says the reason banks are at risk is because of the interconnectivity of banks. It's not easy to hack banks, but they aren't completely safe. The article literally says, "Many banks already see millions of attempted attacks each year, resulting in modest losses, but hackers are rapidly becoming more sophisticated, making banks even more vulnerable to major attacks." Do you actually do any research, or just pull this stuff out of your ass? And if hackers are getting better, they'll probably be ablt to hack into the AIs network, as well... So, again, try harder and actually do some research before spewing lies. All a hacker needs is one weak spot to basically get free reign... And I'm not worried about a robot remembering how I like my steak cooked (because I think those robots are dumb anyway". I'm worried about someone hacking it to do something worse. Like possibly poisoning my food, or my personal info getting into someone else's hands. You know? The important stuff... And a hacker could get that info by hacking...

And you have to wonder if master chefs would actually teach the robots anything, tbh... Or allow their teachings to be stored on their servers... Many may not. We'll have to wait and see if master chefs are done with their secrets and knowledge being in AIs... I would guess probably not. But we'll have to wait and see...

And no. Just saying you liked it better doesn't actually help it much unless it was actually perfect last time. Else it'll probably just keep cooking it like the last time. To get it perfect, you would need to know what you're missing. It could be something that's not usually in the recipe that makes it perfect. If you don't know what it is, then to keep telling it you liked it better last time doesn't nothing to help it get closer to perfection...

And people will pay the cost when they think the cost is worth it, though. Hence why people will pay for express mail to get or send something faster... They also want cheaper, though. They want it all, tbh... It becomes a balance of which is offers more. For example, if oak stead of half the price, it was only a little cheaper, then more people would be fine with Company A.
---

Also, just because you're the only one still using quotes doesn't make you better. I used them earlier, and didn't cut parts out. But you've been cutting bout context of posts with quotes, then acting like there was no context. Or cutting out pieces of a quote and acting like I said something that meant something different then what I quoted because half or more of the quote is gone. Even in quotes from these 13 posts, I've seen it a couple times. You almost split up many posts that actually go together. Which is another reason I don't quote. Because I'd have to quote 2 of your quotes together since you split up my quotes that would go together. And that could also make posting harder since it could mess up how I have to split the messages. It's take a few second to highlight each quote. But it adds on time for some much other stuff. Like when posting. I would have to post at least 13 quotes. And because my post are quoting your whole quote (instead of cutting them), and my post are usually longer, that means I'll probably have at least 19-26 posts. And you can only post twice per minute. I'd rather have 6 (or however many this is) instead of 26. That's the difference of at least 10 minutes for posting. Especially since all this stuff I say would be in the quotes, while also adding the quotes. It's a ridiculous amount, though. Anybody can see that. And I actually do know how to pull a quote. I was doing that earlier. But it was taking too long. And it was honestly useless. And made it hard to have a coherent conversation since many random parts of the conversation were split up. This is not only much quicker altogether. But I can also keep certain parts of the conversation in the same spot. Also, I have to keep finding the last message quoted and quote the next. Which has almost caused me to skip a whole post once. Luckily, I caught it and was able to reply to it. But that could easily happen again. And with 13 post, it sometimes takes time to find the right one. Therefore, I make it easier by just writing a long message. You should try it so it doesn't take 13 messages to say the same wrong info that you keep posting... And if you want to know a secret, I do actually quote all your post. I email them to myself at work to write the reply when I have free time at work since I don't write the replies at home. I just leave the replies out so I can send a shorter reply, and in less messages. Since I had to cut many of the other messages shorter because of either too many quotes, or too long of a message. Which make more messages, which is a pain in itself. So, I can't even try to split them up early... and obviously, the massive wall of text is much short since I only had 6 post instead of the 13+ I probably would have had to send otherwise.

You also act like quoting would help, but it wouldn't. For example, when you said I was deliberately misconstructing your argument about places like Wal-Mart and Target not getting more checks it lines, that's not true (post #164 quote #2) . This whole time, I've been saying Target and Wal-Mart should get more because they can afford it. I even said, "You're talking about a small business. I'm talking about the bigger ones. The ones that actually have self-checkout machines and aren't getting more. The ones you think will wait for cheaper ones. Businesses should absolutely get better ones. Getting older ones is just throwing away money. Small businesses may need some extra time (though 30 years seems like quite a bit of time). But that's if they even need self-checkout, which many don't for mom and pop style shops. But big businesses should always be thinking in the long run." So, no. If anyone is deliberately misconstructing arguments, it's you... I literally said I was talking about bigger stores...

And a personal anecdote is sharing a short story, according to the internet. And what I said wasn't a story. I just asked other people either a question or asked for an opinion and posted what they said. Like when I asked everybody about basically everything we talked about here and told you what they said. It's sharing their opinions or answers. But not a personal anecdote. Examples of personal anecdotes that the internet gives are:

-I once had a border collie. She was so smart. Every morning, I'd open up the front door and she'd run out, pick up the newspaper, and deliver it to my husband at the breakfast table.

-Oh, I love Ireland! I visited the west coast six times last year. Have you ever been to Kilmacduagh? It's an old monastery where the winds whip with songs of the deceased who are laid to rest there.

-Is that a white rose? Wow! I love them. My grandfather had a massive rose garden, over 200 different species. Every Friday, he'd go out into the garden, clip a dozen, and make my grandmother a bouquet. Does love like that exist anymore?

Me saying, "I've literally asked most people I know in real life that I speak with on at least a weekly basis about this. Nobody except for people on this board think everything will be free. The closest was a friend that said what you said which was, "Money is a concept of human labor."" isn't a personal anecdote. It's closer to the results of a sample group of study. And last part was just telling you what one person actually said. And he honestly disagrees with nearly everything else you said... And obviously you saw some sort of problem since you just dismissed it...

And you may think my reasoning is basic, but that's how it is. For context, people already use machines to make a bunch of stuff. And that stuff still cost money. Even though machines make them. And some of it cost a lot. Because they still have to get money and make a profit. They also have to make enough to get more material, as well... That way, they can keep making more of the product... and you tried musing confirmation bias earlier, and you were wrong. And wrong here again. You're the one using confirmation bias, if anything. You're just assuming you're right when history actually shows us you're wrong. If you were right, then all those factories when things are built by machines would be giving us stuff for free. But they aren't. Sometimes, they don't even make it cheaper. Because they want profit... But if you think things will change, where are they getting free material. Because the person mining/making the material with robots will charge for it since he needs that money to survive and maintain his robots. The parts aren't free. And will never be. The problem is there's not way to end money. And robots themselves will cost money to buy and maintain. So, people will still need money to live...

And when I said literally everyone, it was obviously the figurative literally. Obviously, there are people that live in a fantasy world where they think everything will be free. But you can pretend not to understand what I meant. Especially since I was the one who basically said that it wasn't actually everyone... Like is the very next sentence... Also, if I'm using the Alleged Centainty fallacy, you're also using it, but just with the opposite opinion... There's nothing that proves your side except guessing that things will be free for no real reason...
---

You're using the music example. But I'm talking about physical things. Like food, cars, electronics, etc... Yeah. Youtube is free (for us, though it's still getting paid, which I will talk about later). But machines make all sorts of stuff. Machines make the cars, but will still pay a ton for them. Machines put roombas together, and they still cost like $800 dollars. And honestly, the music they make is probably closer indie developers making a game for free that's good to get noticed, so they can make games later to sell. Who knows if robots will sell them or not yet? Though, many people like the bands they listen to, which is why they listen to them. So, people may not actually care. I mean, many people already don't even like robots: https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/humanoids/study-nobody-wants-social-robots-that-look-like-humans

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/oct/04/robots-artificial-intelligence-machines-us-survey

https://www.wired.com/story/ideas-joi-ito-robot-overlords/ (except Japan, I guess)

And you even said that people made the 3D models with the assistance of robots (Which I have mentioned that robots assisting people are fine). And I'll explain why the free stuff on the internet isn't actually free later. Though, its already not free since you usually have to pay for it in you home. Even on your phone, it's part of your phone bill. As for other places, it depends on the area. But it's not free for everyone, since they wouldn't have enough for everyone to use at once. But more on that later... And food and lodgings is usually what cost people the most. You also need to pay for whatever you're using the internet on, though. And the internet bill. And make sure you have the right equipment (which could change when they u[grade stuff)... And not everybody could live comfortably. Some people like playing new games that come out, which aren't free. Or watching certain shows that are only on certain sites like NetFlix, Hulu, Disney+, etc..., which all cost money. And that's most of people income already... And no. I don't see how people are going to give everything away for free when they need that money to buy and maintain the robots. And also pay for everything that need to live and stuff... And you say it's gone against the economic trend in the last 30 years, but that's wrong. In the last 30 years, many factories have become automated, meaning it cost less to make a bunch of certain things. But the prices never drop for us (unless there is a sale). It just means more money for the owners of the business... Not even the workers saw that money... Some places even raised the prices because the stuff was a "higher quality" just because it was made by machines...

And I've explained why they need money in many other post. I don't see anyone just giving out free robots. Especially when it cost money to make them. Even that Sawyer bot junk cost $25,000 when it seems to barely do anything. The ones that actually do stuff will probably cost more. People will need that money to keep buying more robots. Which is why things will still cost money because they have to afford the robots. And to live. Even after a few robots are here and taking our jobs, causing people to lose money and their homes, money will still be a thing. It's just that people will start living a terrible life because not enough people can make money... And I don't know why you think there won't be humans that require compensation. The humans who own the robots will require compensation. That's how they get more robots, and maintain them...

But Kodak failed of more than just the shift to digital. Like when they did very little to prepare for the later disruption, even though they had 10 years... or how they spent $500M to develop and launch the Advantix system, which flopped because people still had to buy film and print even though it was digital. But the actual product of digital cameras was good, which is why they're still around to this day. They also bought Sterling drug, then sold it back in pieces for about half the original purchase price. And in the end, they never actually made the full organization digital for a while, if ever. Which is another reason they failed. Apparently, the other CEOs after Whitmore left would "bemoan his predecessor's failure to transform the organization to digital, declare his own intention to do so, and proceed to fail at the transition, as well." Kodak had its own problems. More than just switching to digital, though...
Also, you kept asking why I was using the future tense for the robots. That's because they aren't all built yet. The first time was post #150. The second time was post #151. I feel like you should remember your own post. They were about a week ago or whatever... You're just being petty about me not quoting now. This shouldn't even be a question. You could have done the CRTL+F for the word tense if you were really confused. It was easy enough to find the only two times you used the word in the posts I was replying to. No matter what you say, it's not going to want to make me quote this anymore. Unless you make way less quotes. But the quote amounts are probably just going to go higher and higher, so...
And when I said, "Just because some know how to program doesn't mean they are do." It was just a simple typo. I meant, "Just because some know how to program doesn't mean they all do." Should have been pretty easy for most people to figure out. If something doesn't make sense, you usually look for the out of place word. You always talk about context, but you don't even use context clues to figure anything out... Or even try to... As for the robots, I'm not giving up control if it can also mess up. I don't think it's ridiculous to want something that takes away my control to be perfect. Why would I want to give up control to something only to wound up hurt or dead? I'd rather do it myself so I know if something happens, it's my fault. Not a shitty faulty AI... And I'd give control to my friend as I trust them more than a hackable machine. I actually trust them and have a reason to trust them at this point. If I didn't trust them, then I probably wouldn't give them control. I have no reason to trust the machine at all... But I understand humans can make mistakes. I don't think a machine that forces control should make any. And I know I damn well wouldn't give it control, so... Either perfect or no... It's really that simple...

You say luddites was wrong, but they weren't. Machines literally can't replace the heart and soul of a human worker. For example, a machine can make quilt, but it won't be the same as a handcrafted quilt made with love by someone you care about. Or a human. And the human made quilt will sometimes have those small imperfections that give it character... Or a special type of sewing technique that the person making it used. A machine can fake it, but it doesn't have the same feeling... Because machine literally don't have feelings...
---

And I don't think driving yourself will ever be banned unless you like tyrannical governments. People would literally fight to not have driving banned... or just drive, anyway. They won't just give up because they say to. I mean, that's something history obviously shows... Even the present shows that... People will do what they want when the law says otherwise. Especially if it takes away what they say is a right. And with the amount of people that don't trust self-driving cars (which I proved in the links at the top), they will not just roll over and accept it... And I'm not the embarrassed one. You are. You're the only one that doesn't know how context clues work. Or can't remember your own post from like a week ago... And post quotes out of order. And still not gonna quote...

As for replacing trucks with self-driving trucks, it depends on if they want to replace them. Like I have buddy of mine who's parents own a trucking company. Apparently, they have no plans now or in the future to switch to self-driving trucks. Same with my buddy who's getting his own company. Maybe not all of them feel the same way, but with the amount of people that don't like self-driving vehicles or automation (as proven in some of the first posts), I would think more than half would try to avoid it. And many places like to use the same company to move stuff since it helps to build the relationship. So, it might not be as quick of a replacement as you think... Also, $60,000 is way too low a price. And it probably won't matter because they most likely won't be level 5 automation. Probably level 4 like buses. Meaning someone still has to be in it. Meaning they would still be paying someone. So, assisting humans instead of replacing... And while you can't ban the idea, you can easily ban the physical robots. And ban the AI from being used in certain places... The idea of AI isn't what people are worried about. It the physical versions of them... And it won't happen as soon as you think. You think technology moves fast because some move fast. But that's not true. Like my previous example, self-checkout were invented 30 years ago. And many places still don't have them. Many vending machine only started accepting card a few years ago, even though a ton of them accepted card way earlier...

You may think it makes the point that AI drivers are better. But many people will avoid it if they have to get somewhere late because of it. Not to mention, there are times when the highway is empty. Most of the time when I'm going 5-10 miles faster, it's on empty highways. So, I don't see the issue if you're putting no one else at risk other than yourself.

The reason I say that people don't trust them is because of these articles:

Here's an article that says 48% said they would never get in a self driving vehicle, and 21% said unsure: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-19/americans-still-don-t-trust-self-driving-cars-poll-shows

Here's one that says nearly 3 in 4 Americans say autonomous vehicle technology "is not ready for primetime. Another 20 percent think autonomous vehicles will never be safe. Only 34 percent think the advantages of AVs will outweigh the disadvantages. Only 18 percent are eager to get on a waitlist for the first AV.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/5/19/21262576/self-driving-cars-poll-av-perception-trust-skepticism-pave

Here's one where only 12% trust them:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thenextweb.com/news/nearly-90-of-americans-dont-trust-self-driving-cars/amp

Here's one that says about 71 percent of Americans say that they don't trust self-driving cars, and just 19 percent say they'd put their children or family members into an autonomous vehicle.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/futurism.com/americans-trust-self-driving-cars/amp

And another one says 78% of respondents said they were afraid to ride in an AV and 41% didn't want to share the road with driverless cars. And, ironically, even as companies roll out more capable semi-AVs, the public is becoming less-not more-trusting of AVs, according to surveys over the past 2 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge and marketing firm J.D. Power and Associates: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/people-don-t-trust-driverless-cars-researchers-are-trying-change

So, no. I'm not the one using the False Consensus effect. That's you, buddy... According to actual surveys...

As for enjoyment, here an article that says 34% enjoy driving a great deal, 44% enjoy it a moderate amount, 13% don'f enjoy it much, and 8% don't enjoy it at all... I assume the last 1% was probably made up of the decimals that were probably after the numbers... That was just for American drivers. But when split between daily drivers and drivers who drive several times a week, it changes slightly. Daily drivers say 41% enjoy it a great deal, and 45% a moderate amount. The non-dailies say 26% enjoy it a great deal, and 54% a moderate amount. Sounds like people like driving. I didn't actually find many studies on that one. But I did find that by literally asking Google, do people like driving? Please try harder next time. You act like I haven't looked up this stuff. You keep saying I have no proof when you could have easily Google searched to see I was right...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/236813/adults-drive-frequently-fewer-enjoy-lot.aspx

And while you think people wanting to drive themselves isn't important, it is when nobody wants to ride in self-driving cars. Many will still want to drive their own cars. And I do believe people would riot over this. So many people. It would actually be pretty hard to get everyone to stop, if they even could. And it would take so many years to even try to get that law pushed through. People aren't going to want to only drive on tracks. And they will let that be known. And you bring up horses, but you can still ride them around. There are just certain laws like being able to make sure you don't block any traffic or pedestrians. And it's fine. Different cities may have different laws, though. And trust me when I say it won't get to the point in my lifetime where we have to ride is self-driving cars. And even if it did (which is won't), I still wouldn't get in one...

And it's funny you mention Zipcar. Because they are apparently horrible... And many people have stopped using them. Some people said Zipcar made them want to buy a car. Others switched to Uber and Lyft. And many people can them a scam, or sleazy company. They seem possibly worse than Vivint (the security company)... People have so many complaints ranging from dirty cars, to not being able to find the car, to the price being not worth it. The only ones who said it was worth it were people who used it only once a week, or a couple times a month. And even some of them say to just Uber or Lyft your way. So, if they become anything like the current Zipcar, it will fail. Especially since Zipcar is already a thing. Apparently, it use to be good like over 5 years ago. Not so much these days... There are plenty of horror stories about them... And it should be obvious people like owning vehicles since they still own them. Zipcar apparently sucks, and Uber,Lyft, and most other car sharing apps are limited by many other things. But almost all have a limit based on how many are around, and cause people to wait, even if only a little. People like the convenience.
---

For the splitting up between electric and self-driving cars, I will first say context is provided if you KEEP READING. You quoted, "And while you can work on both, splitting the work like that slows down both." However, had you kept reading, the whole thing said, "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 it's easier to make electric self-driving cars instead of having to redo them all..." The context is literally there. Next time, maybe read more than one sentence. Because the context maybe in the very next sentence. I'm not quoting anymore. I mean, you're up to 91 quotes. That's a minimum of 13. And my post are long and have substance, so it'll be more for me. Plus, it would take too long to quote each quote... So, for people the can read, it shouldn't be impossible to know what I was talking about. At all...

As for the car ownership, it's dropping for a few reasons. One reason is because there are too many cars and we need less. Though, the studies I found were specific on what changed. It seems like no car households have gone from 8.9% to 9.1%. Only a 0.2% percent increase. But that's full households. It could be different for single people who live in households where cars are already a part of the household. Not to mention, it could be because people are having trouble affording them. Not because they don't want them. And as I showed you above, many people don't seem to even trust the self-driving vehicles. And are getting less trusting as more come out. Plus, that still means 90.9% of households have at least one car (which also goes to show that many people probably rather own their car since that's what many do already). And it took like 40+ years to go down a little over 10%, and this is the first time it's gone up since then, it'll probably be a while before it goes down enough to where it seems like anything has actually changed. I mean, if anything, Uber going to fully self-driving might help more people get cars since it seems like most Americans don't trust self-driving cars. And for good reason... Not to mention in an article I was reading which did talk about why some people (young millenials) didn't like driving, it said that young adults are buying them at a higher rate now than they did 11 years ago: https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-young-adults-cars-attitudes-20181106-story.html

From personal experience, I still haven't met a person in real life who said they would actually ride in a self-driving vehicle out of the many I asked. Which fits with all the other surveys they have done. And the reasons are varied for everybody. But there were certain ones I heard more. I don't know the reasons the people who took the survey gave, but they may have been some of the things the people I've asked mentioned. Or things I've mentioned here...

As for owning, we already have taxis, Ubers, Lyfts, buses, etc, but people still drives their own vehicles. It's more convenient for people. No waiting, can pack the night before if going on a trip, can leave stuff in the car, and all kinds of stuff. For example, I use to have to go to the Per Store either on the way to work or during lunch because of my work times and store hours. But I didn't have enough time to bring it home. So, I would put it in my trunk until I got to go home that night. Or how I leave my gym clothes in my car if I want to go to the gym after work. Or bringing a change of clothes if going to a friend's house afterwards.

As for leaving stuff accidentally, it really depends on a few things. Like the method it uses to tell someone, or if it can tell. The two ways I can see it telling the customer is either an alarm sound (could also be something like a beep), or a phone notification. Most people would probably not like any alarm sounds since even a soft beeping could be annoying or loud. Which could cause a problem like waking a baby or something. And phone notifications won't do much if someone's phone died, or they don't check it. Or if the phone is what they left. As for why they might not check it, it might be because the notification keeps going off, even though the reason is they went shopping, so they know stuff is still in the car. And that's IF the car even does actually notify you. That's a big assumption that they will build that into the vehicles. Or that the car will notice. Which brings to light the talk about a possible camera. Which some people may not want watching them the whole time. Many people are fine with their own cameras, but not with a camera going back to some server somewhere else. Which could also cause trouble if some teens use it to go somewhere to have sex. And speaking of doing nasty things in the vehicles, those vehicles will probably be so gross if people were actually constantly using them. They would basically have to be cleaned after every ride. Which really slows down literally everybody that would have to use them. And the only way to solve that is either not cleaning constantly, or more vehicles. Which creates a different problem that we already have. Basically, this idea is a dumb one with way too many flaws. And some of those flaws are actually fixed by having a drivers. Like they could easily clean after rides. And even if they didn't clean after every ride, they might after something gross happened. But most who own the vehicles probably clean it. And a driver could return the phone. They could steal it. But that could also happen in a self-driving service if the next person in the car steals it when they get in. Because AFAIK, I haven't heard about any sensors be placed in the car to warn people about leaving stuff. And that's probably because they aren't worried about that. Maybe because they aren't thinking about making a fully autonomous taxi service yet like the one you described. Or don't care if people leave stuff. It would also suck to have to hook and unhook a baby car seat every time you took the baby anywhere. Most people hook it up in their car. And I'm not actually worried about the babies. While the AI might not notice something you dropped in the car, it would probably tell you a passenger is in the vehicle. And most people wouldn't forget as you would have to program the daycare in the navigation system when ordering. That being said, I don't believe you're the only one who had this ridiculous idea on the site, but it may have been you who mentioned it the last time we talked. It's still as ridiculous as it was last time. I'm pretty sure this won't happen for probably another 50 years, at the earliest. And that if it even works. And with the amount of people against self-driving vehicles, and the amount of people that probably wouldn't want to be filmed, it would be a doomed business venture. Even the people who use Uber might not want the self-driving vehicles, as many of them may be part of the people who don't trust self-driving vehicles... Also, by keeping the cars, it just adds to the problem I mentioned above. There would be too many cars to maintain at once since many people would probably be doing this. And then traffic would slow down drastically due to the insane amount of cars on the road. Making things worse than they are since there would also be many humans drivers, as well...
---

As for owning the cars in garages and driveways, there are a few things. One things is the car on the mainland doesn't actually seem to fit what I was talking about. The parking lot you pay for seems to be more of a parking area rather than a personal garage or driveway. As for the one on the island, Idk anything about the island, so I can't say anything here. I know for most people in the US in many of the places I've been to, people can and will park on the curb in front of houses if possible. And if people would rather have more house or yard, they could modify the house to fit those needs. Or buy it like that or whatever... They could even shorten it to have just enough room for the car, saving a bunch of land. Many different things. I have no idea of that's an option for you there. But based on this, you probably wouldn't for the majority who are fine owning a car and would rather not pay a ton for having to basically rent a car (or multiple cars) daily. Or having to keep a car all day, which would probably cost extra. Makes more sense to just own a car. And speaking of the subscriptions, it probably wouldn't be a flat rate. Because distance and stuff matters (like with Ubers or Taxis). And if it was a flat rate, it'd probably be way too high for it to be cheap enough that people would want to pay it... So the people who can't own a car would be better off using public transport, which actually can be pretty cheap in certain areas. Much cheaper than an Uber subscription would most likely be... And waiting on a bus that's on a schedule might be better than waiting on a car, especially if they are all busy when you call for one. And if they aren't because the road's flooded with them, then you'll still be waiting for a while because of nearly stand still traffic. You may even be waiting longer...

And I literally said, "I'm going to be using future tense since they aren't common and in every store, so they are still a future tech as of right now." And they aren't common or in a bunch of stores. That's why I'm still calling it future tech. Most people won't be able to afford it. Hence why I call it future tech. And that's a reply to post #167 quote 4, since you're proven you don't understand context clues or remember anything you post... And it seems like it can barely do anything? That's why I'm asking what it can do. It has that weird hand to pick up nuts, and a vaccum attachment. Can it do stuff other than pick up small items and vacuum? And, like I said earlier, 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... And you just said, "At the moment? Yes. This is still early days for those sorts of robots." Which means I was right when I said it was future tech as it still doesn't actually work the way it's supposed to... I was calling it future tech because it's not common or anything. But it's literally future tech since it doesn't even work the way it's supposed to yet...

As for the roombas, I'm not the one mixing up arguments. You are. My argument has been the same. You literally kept talking about paying the robots. And that was never the issue. The issue is that you would still pay for the robots. Or pay the owners of the robots. You're the only one who brought up paying the roomba like a vending the machine. The whole point is that the roomba that's created by automation still cost money because you have to buy it. Never was I talking about paying a roomba to clean my house. Or paying the robots themselves (unless there were cashier robots, but that's still paying the business and not the robot). It was always about buying the roomba, and paying for the robots. You were the only one talking my about paying Johnny 5 for his services instead of his owner... We can't move on unless you understand that...

And there's not more free shit. We get free samples of stuff. But there's not that much free shit. Most stuff cost money, even if it doesn't cost us money. Or cost something other than money, like information...When I'm talking about free shit, I'm talking about physical free shit. You said that with automation, then stuff robots make will be free. So how come all the physical shit robots make cost money. And cost about the same amount as when humans made them? My point of view makes sense in the real world. Your point of view is the one in a magical world where everything in free for literally no reason other than that's what you want. Mine is based in the real world where shit cost money because human need money to survive.

Also, you seem to be assuming that the store will be selling items at half price. But there's literally no proof of that. Having robots doesn't mean everything in your store is cheaper. You don't price you merchandise based on your workers. You base it on the cost of the items you buy. You understand that's how shit it priced, right? Just because you have robots doesn't mean the items in your store are cheaper. They will most likely be the same price the other store's since you both probably paid the same for them. Store gets items and mark up the price. No workers to pay just means bigger profits for the owners since you have no workers to pay... So the only person wrong here is you...

And not everything you listed is free. But we can go through the list again if you want...

-Music: Youtube have a bunch of music put up by other people who probably should put it up. And it's not free, as the original poster had to buy it from somewhere. And youtube is on the internet, which cost money...

-Pictures: They cannot get you pictures on whatever subject you want. Like pictures of a specific person might not be available. Or pictures of something that doesn't exist might not be available. Also, you could be stealing. Many people watermark their work so that people can't use it without permission. Some are also supposed to be available only on certain sites with permission, but people will buy them and put them up for free for other people to use, even when they aren't actually supposed to. Which is a form of theft. And again, the internet isn't free... And obviously, photos from like cameras and stuff aren't free... And whether you're paying for the material of the photo, it's still not free. That's the whole point. It needs to be free to fit your narrative, and it's not since the materials cost something. That's like saying food is free because you're paying for the materials and not the actual food. And while not everyone needs hard copies of their photos, many like to have them. To give out and stuff... There's a lot of things not everyone needs...

-Videos: No. They are paid for by the ads, so they aren't free. They are paid for us. Like I say later (in the porn part), just because someone else paid for my food doesn't mean it's free. It just means someone else paid for them. And again, not even all the videos can be paid for from the ads. They have many things which you need Youtube Red to watch. And some stuff you still need to buy or rent to watch. So, not free...

-Email: It cost information. So, not nothing. Just a different form of currency. And that a pretty dangerous form of currency to just be giving away... So, it cost something... Which can actually be pretty dangerous, too. Information given away like that has probably helped many people to get scammed... Especially the older folks who don't/didn't understand email all that well...
---

-Depends on where you go for stories. Some are free. But not everything is online for free. And many of the ones that are might basically be stolen since it shouldn't be online for free. And again, it's not all of them. For you to say stuff is free, it would need to be all. That's like if I wanted to read a book, but the only thing online was fanfiction of the book I wanted to read and not the book. When I say free, I'm talking about everything free. Not something I don't want. Because then the free doesn't matter...

-TV Shows: The ones online are pirated, so illegal. And all the illegal stuff online (not just tv shows, but everything) doesn't count into the free pile. Because then you can say anything is free if you steal it. But that doesn't mean it's free. Just means that you stole it. And most of the free stuff online seems like it wasn't supposed to be free. Especially if it's also on a pay streaming site... And also, having a few free samples isn't the same as something being free... Which I believe I also explain below (porn part, again)...

-Videos Games: I still see no proof against what I said. And steam also has a ton of not free games to counter the free ones. Not only that, but steam isn't the only platform. There's Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. And when you compare all the game that cost money (even a couple bucks) the free ones, My point of games are rarely free still stands. So, are you going to post an argument? Or are you just trying to say that you know I'm right? And that's still only a small sample size. And not usually big named systems. And if you don't have steam, most games that you could get for free aren't available anymore... And the price has recently risen (because it literally has). They went from $60 to $70 for most games. And I don't see what it "being cheaper than it ever has been" matters. That means it still cost money... And it's cheaper only due to inflation. But the actually amount has gone up for most since many people are making the same they were before the prices went up...

-For porn, there's that quoting out of context again. What I said was, "Porn is free... on certain sites. Many do have cost, like a subscription. Even the free ones. You don't have to pay it, but then you don't get all the videos. It's like a free sample at a store. It's large one, but still..." you quotes the first part, and tried to pretend I agreed when I didn't. So, no. We are not in agreement. Like I said, it's like a free sample. A large one, though. Just because I can get a free sample of food at the store doesn't mean food is all free now. So, don't play that shit acting like I agreed with you.

-Online Forum & Social Media: Again, they are selling your info, so not free. Just a different currency you're paying. Though, the site makes money from it...

-Podcast: I didn't agree with you. You just quoted out of context again. My actual post said, "Podcast are free... If they're on a free service. Some have moved to a paid service, and are only free if someone puts them somewhere else." So good job lying, I guess...

-Video Conferencing: I can't check because I don't use them. But I did ask Google and apparently, they have a plan that cost money from what I read... Like Zoom has a payment thing. And Skype is only free to other Skype accounts. But cost money when not to Skype. Even oovoo has something you pay for. Not sure what it is. But I don't really use them, so I can't check. But the internet says they cost money...

-The Internet: Not all internet plans are that low. I live in a city where one company has a monopoly and charges a lot more for the basic internet plan. Though, most people here game and don't have the basic one. But the basic one is nowhere near $30 a month. And even my family who lives in a place with more competition don't have internet prices that low. And in the end, it doesn't matter if it's $30 or $300. The fact is IT'S NOT FREE. And that's the whole point...

The biggest point to take away is that even if we aren't paying with money, they are still get money off of us. Or from other people. For example, when I go to restaurants, people would sometimes pay for my meal. So, while I got the food for "free", it wasn't actually free. Someone else paid for it. It's the same for things that have ads. The ads are paying for whatever you looking at like videos or on a site. So, not free...

Also, about the free stuff, the best part is I noticed that all this doesn't even matter as it doesn't even have anything to do with what I was originally talking about. I was saying how things would already be free if all it took was being automated. But most of the stuff you mentioned isn't even automated, so it doesn't even work for all the stuff you put. And not free most of the time, as mentioned above. Like porn with real people is usually made by people. Podcast are usually people talking. Games, stories, and music are also normally made by people. So, not even automated, which means they don't even have anything to do with what I was even talking about. And since they are already making money for those free things, they don't have to charge us (or all of us, since some people will pay the cost for everyone in the form of things like Patreon). Until they aren't making money, or want more...

And in the end, they are making money by selling you info. So, while it doesn't cost you money, you are still paying for it. Kind of like it you paid for you groceries with a tv. The groceries aren't free because you gave them a tv. You just paid with someone else valuable... And again, the internet isn't free... So, I'll ask again. Did you bump your head? Or are you straight up lying by acting like all of this is free? Because this stuff isn't free. It all has a price. Most money or information. And then the information is sold for money... And free options are just free samples. But as I explained earlier, just because a store isn't giving out free samples, it doesn't mean the food is all free. Just a sample. Not to mention, you straight up took a few of my post out of context like a dirty little liar. And as I said earlier, we're talking about legally free. Not, "I stole it, so it's free." So, there's also that... So I actually didn't admit you were right. And the one thing I couldn't tell you about, I found out actually does have cost. You're too blind to see that taking post out of context and having only a sample of free stuff doesn't mean that stuff is all free... So, again, did you bump you head?

I may have said I think I meant plant, but that's because I'm like 99.99% sure I did. It's possible I was thinking of something else. But I can assure you that I wasn't thinking of plate unless I was thinking of "plate of food". But it was most likely plant. Like I said earlier, you don't "grow" plates. Why you thought I meant plates, I'll never know... Even if you thought I meant plate of food, that would have made sense. But just plates... Idk... So, still a stronger argument than anything you made. And not everyone knows how to hunt, or has the equipment or skills to do so. Plus, it has to be something in season. And you would still have to get it before someone else does. If everyone was out there doing it, you'd have a lot less luck. Then you also have to know how to butcher it. You can go to a butcher, but that cost money. So, most people buy meat from someone that's already killed it and butchered it all up. Which would still cost money if a robot did it. Though, most stores will probably continue to serve farmed animals, which will still cost something since they bought it from the farmer, who's happy to make a bigger profit since he has robots doing his work, while he rakes in the money...
---

And basic economics seems to have gone over your head. What makes you think other farmers will sell cheaper. Or that people will be willing to buy from the others. Many places only source from the same places because they trust those places. Also, why would anyone else sell them cheaper. You do realize that farmers have to make a profit, as well, right? They still have to pay a lot of stuff. Like everything that bought for the animal (like feed), and pay for vet bills, and other things like the butchering of the animal. Just because robots are working the farm doesn't mean all those bills go away. It just means the farmer doesn't have to do all the work. They may not even have any farm hands. I know many farms in my area where it's a family thing. You seem to think having robots just means things are cheaper and free, but that's not how the world works. They will still have to buy the same amount of feed, and get the same shots. That doesn't change. And if the amount they spend to keep the raise the animals is the same, they'll have the same price to sell the animals when they're ready... That's why the farmer has no reason to lower his prices. So, that's why I asked why it would be cheaper for the people buying it from them? The answer is, it wouldn't be. Because having robots might not even lower their cost. It might just mean the farmer and their family won't have to work as hard. But the animals will still need food and shots... And if anything, they would have to sell it more to actually make more money to pay for the robot... Before telling someone else that basic economic is going over their head, make sure you understand it first... I live in a farming town, so this stuff is pretty common here... You can keep saying whatever you want about the robots doing the work, but you're still wrong. The robots are doing the work because the farmer owns them. Or is renting them. So, the food will still belong to the farmer, who sells them to be sold to us. They will always cost money. And if the farmer is renting the robots, they'll cost more money since it'll be like paying farm hands, since they'll have to pay whoever owns the robots. If the farmer owns them, then the food might stay the same price, unless he tries to make his money back faster to help pay for the robots... So you're the only one who's wrong here...

I don't remember what a string is. I wrote that after watching a short tutorial. But that was a while ago. But I don't know why I have to tell you what a string is. You obviously know I'm right and you're mad that I understood that you can have different playstyles in Go. And the reason "playing aggressively" matter in the context of an AI is because it's different than playing a different way. Like playing passively. They are two different play styles. Just like a human might play differently depending on how their opponent plays, the AI plays different depending on how their opponent plays. It's pretty basic knowledge. Like how is Chess, sometimes, a person has to play defensively when another person has got them on the run. Same thing in Go, but what's considered playing aggressively or passively is different.

And again, read the rest of the post, and you'll get context. Why do you take one sentence, ask for context, and then pass over the next couple of sentences that give context? Act like an adult, keep reading, and maybe context will be provided. You quote the past the said, "As for video games, I don't see them every trying to do that." Reading more would give you, "As for video games, I don't see them every trying to do that. Just taking other games and smooshing them together..." So, based on the context of the next sentence, and how I feel about AI (and what I said before), I context clues would most likely point to I don't think they'll be making a lot of new games. I feel they'll just take a bunch of games and smoosh them together... Even when other developers use ides from other games, they don't just smoosh games together to make a new one. It's usually inserted well, depending on the game and developers. Like taking an idea from a game and making it better. Or maybe they take two games, and insert them in a way that makes sense instead of just taking both games, cramming them together, and seeing what comes out... I feel that's one of the differences between human-made games, and AI-made games.

I don't think the ones letting the AI help with be "hobbyist. I think that will be their job. And it's fine if the AI helps. As long as it doesn't replace them. And I honestly don't think it will. Not for the gaming companies that make good games, at least... But I think the people letting the AI help would be actual game developers who get paid for their work... As for the simple statement of fact, you said, "Yes, it would try and make something new. That's a simple statement of fact." And I said, "Except it's 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." Try to keep up... Also, in the sentence, I literally said, "all they use to do before (and probably still do) and take other ideas and use those to make stuff." So, I don't know why you any context trouble when the context was literally in the quote. The literal context was in the post. This is making me not want to quote more. Are you actually reading the post? Because I don't understand how you can literally quote the context of my sentence, and then ask for context... If you literally read what you posted, you would have had your context... And there's even more context since the sentences before and after are all talking about AI making video games. There's so much context, you should be drowning in it... Incase you're still confused, I was saying that about Ais making video games...

While I am looking at present day AI, that's because that's all we currently have. Who can actually say if they'll get better at making content? We can't say that for a fact. We can guess and assume, but something could stop it from ever being able to make games and stories better than smooshing other content together. But I am basing off of what we already have, because that's all I can base it off of... And you never know. Maybe they never will make a 100 terabyte that works for your computer. If they don't have one, we can't say for sure they'll make one... And even if they make the computer with one in it, who's to say you'll own it? And I'm not pretending it's about current tech AI. I'm literally talking about the current tech. You're the one that keeps lying about how that stuff is already out now. You keep saying stuff like that's already here. And keep asking why I'm using future tenses. I am talking about current tech. Because there is no future tech guaranteed. Plus, you were the one that keeps acting like this stuff will happen soon because of how fast technology moves. I've been saying that all this stuff is far away. And you keep saying sooner than I think, and that's it's not that far away. And my argument is AI aren't perfect but won't have to worry about mistakes, because the humans watching them to catch the ones the AI doesn't catch. The humans aren't perfect, nor do they have to be. The old saying of two heads are better than one applies here. The more people you have watching, the less mistakes they'll have, and the better chance they have of catching them before it gets to far. You can try to twist my words all you want, though... I'll still be right, and you'll still be wrong...
---

Another reason I'm not a fan of AI made stuff is there is no feeling behind any of it. They can fake feeling, but real feeling behind something is what can make something special. Like a song somebody sings when somebody got hurt, almost died, and almost caused another person to commit suicide because of how close they were to the other person. It has a different feeling when you hear about how that's why a song was written. Those songs hit different when you know why they were written, ot what they were written about. It feels less special when an AI just made it because it thought people would like it. Same with anything that was made with feeling like a painting, music, or video game. AI don't really have feelings, nor do they feel loss the same way humans do. So, the things they make don't hit the same when there's no real feeling behind it.

Again, a simple typo (keep reading for context). But an easy enough one to figure out. It's like you're not good at reading and figuring out what people are trying to say. What I was saying was, "And I had some civilian friends, but most of them were trouble." Just missing one word. And most people who read at most grade levels would probably be able to figure out what I meant. But based on you other posts, I guess I can see why you would have trouble reading it. You seem to have trouble reading context when it's in the same sentence, so... But it was pretty clear it was English. Maybe you should study the language if that didn't look enough like English to you... Typos happen. Most people can still understand if the only thing is one word changed... As for my friends, you still haven't given an answer. I asked, "Why would I not hang out with them and force myself to find other friends who I probably won't like." The answer is I wouldn't. I like the friends I meet at work. And I don't go out much here. And when I do, the most fun people are usually the people I know from work. I could force myself to hang out with civilians and be bored. But why would I do that when I can hang out with co-workers and have fun? And I never suggested that was the only way. But the friends I make the other way never really seem like fun... So, it' makes sense to hang out with the friends I make at work. The ones I spend a good chunk of my day with. No work would probably mean lousy friends... And I wouldn't be able to hang out with them with no work. Many probably wouldn't stay in the area in the job didn't keep them here. And most aren't people I would have normally thought to hang out with. They don't seem like the type I'd hang around. It's when we were force to get to know each other (because they're on the same shift) that you sometimes realize you have fun around them... So, yes. There is a problem with no having to do a job in the automated future. Especially since it also doesn't mean others would work. Though, that being said, I don't really have to worry about my job anytime soon... Probably not for decades, tbh... As for my job, it's great as a job, but not fun as a hobby. I'm pretty sure I explained that already. I'm not acting like a toddler. You just don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm pretty sure I made that clear already... And like I said, it doesn't matter since my job is safe for at least a couple decades. Or until they get rid of this shitty aircraft, or shitty system we use... And it's not that I want someone to make me do it. I just want to do it and get paid, and spend time with my co-workers there. It's a pretty fun environment when we're just all there and working. Or doing whatever since we do a lot of other stuff there, as well... We sometimes have more fun there as a group then when we all go to someone's house for like a small get-together... So, to me, A fully automated future is a dystopian future that I' would rather die than live in... Definitely not an upgrade... And it also won't be all free, as I've said multiple times before...

I don't think you understand AI. Nobody owns the AI idea. People own the physical robots they are in, though. That's what I'm talking about. The robots are a physical thing. Like that Sawyer robot crap you posted. You can literally own one. That has the AI in it, right? And somebody can buy and own one, right? So yes. People can own the AI. And people will basically be under their control since they will control pretty much everything. And they will be the ones making a shit ton of money while everyone else does their best to scrap by... Unless you're saying people can't own the Sawyer bot. But it looks like you can buy one, therefore, you can own that robot with the AI inside... That's the simple logic behind owning AI...

And the AI mimicking the bands is the problem. All they do is mimic. I don't want AI that mimics the bands. I'd rather have the band play them. The mimicked sounds will suck just because that's all it is... A crappy fake... Covers are fine since they sound like the band playing them. AIs mimicking them suck, though... If you like the fakes, good for you. I don't. And will avoid them. I just want the real bands playing the music... As for bands, even if one person dies, the rest of the band could go on if they wanted to... People switch in and out of bands all the time. And you can actually hear the differences when they switch them, too...

And while you say my interpretation is incorrect, I was just basing on what you said earlier: But if you want to talk about those points

a.) That seems like bad business if you can't get enough customers. Normally, when people are making a business, they make a business that people need. Therefore, they would have plenty of customers.

b.) Your profits margins shouldn't be that slim for a business. As the point of a business is usually to make money.

c.) Whether it's your main source of income or not, the point of a business is to make money. Just because profit wasn't paramount doesn't really mean anything...

To me, it still sounds like you had trouble running a business. Side business or not, you should be able to make enough to run it. I made no wild assumptions. I just based my assumption on exactly what you said. And this doesn't help to prove you had a good business. Sounds like you were barely staying afloat. And that's not the best way to run a business... And watching hockey players isn't the same as helping to run a business. But you can say whatever. If I have no business experience from helping my mom with her business, then I would think the same of you. It's not like I was only watching. She was teaching me. From when she first started going to night classes through running the whole thing.

And for the junk self-checkout, I'm not constraining anything. I was always talking about building it from junkyard parts. Why do you think I was talking about building a car from junk part, but was talking about ordering parts for the self-checkout. That would be ridiculous as building a car from junk parts and building a self-checkout from ordered parts don't have anything to do with each other. If I was talking about building a car from ordered parts, that would make sense. But from the beginning, I was talking about building both from junk parts. Idk why you would assume anything different... You're just mad that you "lost the debate"... And to counter you argument, there are also many catalogues that have enough parts to build a classic car, but not a computer. Your point?
---

If you don't make plans for stuff that could happen, you'll be unprepared. For example, the scenario I described could easily happen. Personally, I hope that it doesn't. But I also don't really trust the self-driving cars for it to not happen... Hence, why I also won't ever ride in one... Also, it is decades in the future or not. I kept saying it was decades in the future. You kept saying it was coming much sooner. And in my lifetime and everything. Like when you said that I may not have choice in the future when I have to get in self-driving cars. So, I don't think it's coming out anytime soon. But what about you. Do you think they're coming out soon, or in decades? And if my claim is unfounded, then so are all of yours... All these claims you're making about self-driving cars. Like how the stupid taxi will work... And I'd rather prove that it's a valid concern before people get hurt or die from it. That's how things should be. But I guess who cares about a few deaths until after it happens. What a great way to think *sarcasm*...

Also, I never said the human drivers couldn't swerve. I'm pretty sure I even mentioned in another post that the same thing could happen to human drivers, didn't I? I even mentioned a human driver could end up changing how the self-driving car acts. So, I'm scuttling my own argument. You just seem to have a hard time reading... And as I said, AIs should be better at avoiding them. If they can still have accidents, I don't want to be in them. If the self-driving car wants full control, it better be perfect... And because it hasn't happened yet, nobody can literally know if it'll be worse that with humans. Unless you can see the future. Which you obviously can't... Having 360 doesn't actually mean it'll see it. As I said, something could end up blocking the view. Or there could be a glare. Leaving the scene of the accident is only illegal for the people in the accidents. Witnesses can leave. And if a car doesn't know it caused it accident, it might keep driving. So, again, "It's possible other cars don't stop to hand over their recording if they weren't involved. And it's possible there would be glare for a human driver. I'd still trust a human driver way more than an AI, though... And it's not a known fact that it's better since we don't have them as commonplace on the road yet. Only once they're commonplace can we make an actual decision. For all you know, mayhem will break loose as soon as too many are on the road... And I obviously know more since I know it could very much easily happen. By that, I mean, an AI can easily miss a human sleeping in another car...

Again, the context is there if you read more than one sentence... All you quoted was, "And are you serious." When if you read more than four words, you would see the whole thing says, "And are you serious. You just quoted where I said, "And here you are quoting baldy again to change my words." And then asked, "Where?" I literally pointed out in the next sentence." So if you actually read more than a few words, maybe you'd see the context. Quoting wouldn't have helped because you obviously wouldn't have read that and just asked, "About what", again. Please, read before asking for context, because it's been given a lot. You just seem to have trouble reading multiple sentences in a row or something... We're both regulars, so I thought you'd remember, but I guess not. Plus, it wasn't like it was a short conversation. While it was shorter than this, it also went on for a while... That said, I remember many conversations I've had with people I don't know over the years. Not really that hard, tbh... If you really believe in something, then you views on it probably wouldn't change. Plus, longer conversations stick with me... And I have other things that take priority in my memory, Doesn't mean I forget everything else. You can remember multiple things at once. That how the brain works.

And I can say you definitely said my bus station was going to get self-driving buses. That's why I started to have a long conversation with you. I mentioned how my bus station was still buying manual buses, and you said that my station would be buying them soon. I remember that detail very specifically because that was the main things that got me going. If you had never said that, we wouldn't even have had much to argue about. And we did argue, so I know you said that. Maybe I'll find the source eventually. But I know you said that. Be a liar if you want, though... And you can doubt my memory, It's still better than yours. It was a while ago. And I gave you a short amount of time it could be in. If I remembered the exact date, I would have already found it. The other problem is I don't remember what the actual topic was about. Mainly because the only conversation that really interested me was you saying that my bus station would have self-driving buses soon... But people can remember conversation easier than when it exactly happened. Because when something happened isn't always as important as the actual conversation... And in the end, the small ones still don't show they are capable of carrying people in wheelchairs. I've seen the videos and articles you showed me. And none of the small ones had an area to secure wheelchairs. And they need to be secured before a bus can carry them. I don't even think they was video of anybody in a wheelchair on them... Unless you can find a video of a small one with wheelchair capabilities... And money does allow people to dodge laws. That's why the rich can usually do whatever they want. They have lawyers who can back them up and find the loopholes to say that what they're doing is ok. This literally happens all the time. Rich people get away with all sorts of things all the time. And they can easily pay settlements to avoid having to worry about certain things at a certain time. Money runs this world, so the rich basically run this world... So, I don't' know what they said to whoever. But if the small buses are running, then they did something. Because none of the small buses you showed my had anything resembling the bus could secure a wheelchair... So, again. It's probably money and loopholes getting them through this without them getting in trouble...
---

Why do you keep arguing when you said you'd never change your mind on this, Link?

---

Sarcasthma posted...

Why do you keep arguing when you said you'd never change your mind on this, Link?

Why not? I already know Im not going to change my mind. But I also dont see any reason to not respond to him...
---

---

Write a book homie.

---

ReturnOfFa posted...

Write a book homie.

No time to... Plus, no reason to...
---

This thread will be at least as long as War & Peace by the time it reaches 500.

I have never seen so many posts this long

is this what happens when Link takes a break from using ellipses?

---

JigsawTDC posted...

This thread will be at least as long as War & Peace by the time it reaches 500.

Maybe close...

Mead posted...

I have never seen so many posts this long

is this what happens when Link takes a break from using ellipses?

I can only fit so many words into a post at once. If I was quoting, it'd be like 2-3 times as many post... But I was still using ellipses...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Please do me a favor and read before posting statements like, "I need context." Because almost every time you say that, context was in the next sentence or two. At the very least, context clues will be there.

I'm not going to scroll back a dozen posts to try and decipher what random sentence you're responding to based on "context clues." Provide context or a quote.

LinkPizza posted...

You can copyright recipes to an extent. But how the law works is different from normal copyright laws.

No, it doesn't.

You cannot copyright an idea, full stop. All you can copyright is how that idea is expressed. For instance, I cannot copyright apple pie just because I came up with a great apple pie recipe. If someone else, through trial and error, happens to come up with the exact recipe I use, they are free to use it. If this was not the case, every dish in the world would be subject to copyright right now and no cook would be able to make anything without a lawyer present to ensure they were in compliance with rights.

You can copyright a recipe, but only in the sense that someone else can't steal that recipe, put it in their own cookbook and sell it for profit; someone is free to follow that recipe to the letter in order to cook a dish and sell it (or to try and "reverse-engineer" your dish by tasting it and trying to work out what you did). That's why places like Coke and KFC famously guard their recipes - if someone else could work out how to make them (which an AI would be far better equipped to do than a human), there would be no penalty to someone selling knock-off Coke or KFC using the same recipes. If they could copyright the dishes, they would simply do so and save themselves the hassle.

LinkPizza posted...

And will probably change when AI that can make certain food based off other foods become popular. Especially since that would cost restaurants money.

And make other restaurants money, so don't expect food industry reps to stand in the way of this.

LinkPizza posted...

So, most restaurants won't take to an AI learning how to cook their $20 burger to sell at McDonalds for a couple bucks. Not to mention, some people go to certain restaurants for food cooked to taste a certain way. If you've gone to other restaurants, then you know that certain foods at certain recipes may have a more specific taste. And many restaurants aren't going to want their recipe to be used at other places.

Whether they want to or not is immaterial. It will happen all the same because there's really no way to stop people with AI from sampling food and using an AI to analyze it unless they, y'know, stop selling food altogether.

LinkPizza posted...

And I think the law will uphold that.

Based on what?

Again, you can't copyright an idea. Even if you tried, it's impossible to enforce.

LinkPizza posted...

Or riots might ensue.

Yes, people will be rioting because AI gives them affordable, high-quality meals at a price no human cook could ever match. That makes total sense.

LinkPizza posted...

And 99% percent of the population in way too high of a number for people who don't have someone to cook for them.

I feel confident in saying that 99% of households do not contain a restaurant-quality chef, which is what this originally stemmed from, nevermind one skilled enough to make any dish to the exact specifications of the household members.

---

LinkPizza posted...
And then some people just like cooking and stuff... Or eating their own food.

And? The existence of AI cooks doesn't mean you won't be able to cook your own food; it means if you want restaurant food, it will be better, faster, and cheaper.

LinkPizza posted...
But sometimes, the reason people like something is because a certain person cooked it for them.

And, again, having AI cooks does nothing to preclude this. If you want to cook a meal for someone, the police won't break down your door and confiscate your kitchen utensils. Cook all you want; all it means is that you have the option of having an AI do it instead, something most restaurants will go for because it's cheaper and more reliable (no need to bring on extra cooks for the dinner rush, then be forced to either send them home after only a few hours or pay them to stand around doing nothing).

LinkPizza posted...
And imperfections aren't only for food. It's even in art.

You're back to arguing that AI are perfect and saying it's a bad thing, yet later in this chain you'll switch to arguing at the AI aren't perfect and saying that's a bad thing. Pick a lane.

LinkPizza posted...
But the stupid AI would probably keep making it the same.

No, it wouldn't. Why would it? Not everyone likes their dishes the same.

An AI can make one dish a hundred different ways if you ask it to. Again, you're coming up with these bizarre predictions that have zero basis in reality and really only show that you don't understand how AI work or learn. AI programs learn *by changing things* then comparing the results. The won't keep making it the same unless you ask them to because you're happy with how it was made.

LinkPizza posted...
The reason I go to different restaurants is to try a different version of the same things sometimes.

And an AI will let you do that without forcing you to travel somewhere different. You could try every burger in the world from the comfort of your local neighbourhood diner. Or hell, from the comfort of your own home if you are so inclined.

LinkPizza posted...
The problem with asking a robot to make it differently is you may not know what you actually want that's different.

You can just say, "Make it more like this," and give it an example of the burger you actually did like and the AI will figure out the rest. That sort of goal-based learning is actually something AI are really good at.

LinkPizza posted...
Which you probably wouldn't be able to do from your home robot since that would cost restaurant money, which will still be a thing...

No, it won't.

---

LinkPizza posted...
Thinking robots will always be allowed to make food based on restaurant's taste

Because they will. There's basically no way to stop it.

I mean, if I could make a taste-analysis robot small enough to hide in my mouth (not unreasonable with future tech), how would any restaurant stop me from sampling their food to teach an AI? And moreover, why would they want to when there's far more money to be made from agreeing to teach an AI in return for a cut of the proceeds?

LinkPizza posted...
Banks have gotten hacked, though. And often. Here's an article about it:

And yet, our financial sector still marches on, still ever-more digitized, and somehow the whole system hasn't collapsed yet.

LinkPizza posted...
Do you actually do any research, or just pull this stuff out of your ass?

Do you? Because you've demonstrated a complete absence of knowledge regarding AI in this topic, what with your, "They'll probably do this" or "It'll probably be like this" statements, all of which fly in the face of reality, something anyone with a modicum of knowledge about how AI works would be able to tell you in half a second.

Seriously, if you're going to go all scorched-earth Luddite on this topic, at least pull your head out of the ground for long enough to learn something about it. An educated opinion is far superior to an uneducated one based on gut instincts and knee-jerk reactions, which is where at least 80% of your posts are coming from at the moment.

Just for fun, I'm going to bold every random prediction and hypothetical you post for the rest of this response, just to show you how frequently you do it.

LinkPizza posted...
And if hackers are getting better, they'll probably be ablt to hack into the AIs network, as well...

Implying that digital defences are not improving in lockstep with hacking technology.

LinkPizza posted...
Like possibly poisoning my food, or my personal info getting into someone else's hands. You know? The important stuff...

Yeah your personal info like... how you like your food cooked. Oh no, so terrible!

LinkPizza posted...
And you have to wonder if master chefs would actually teach the robots anything, tbh... Or allow their teachings to be stored on their servers... Many may not.

They don't have a choice on whether to "allow" them or not.

You can't copyright an idea. I will repeat that as many times as it takes for you to understand it.

LinkPizza posted...
Just saying you liked it better doesn't actually help it much unless it was actually perfect last time. Else it'll probably just keep cooking it like the last time.

Again, this is showing a pretty blatant misunderstanding about how AI works and learns.

Educate yourself.

---

LinkPizza posted...
If you don't know what it is, then to keep telling it you liked it better last time doesn't nothing to help it get closer to perfection...

Yes, it does, because the AI will then iterate off of its best attempt until it reaches a better one. Then it will iterate off of that recipe. Repeat continuously until it reaches "perfection" (or close enough to it that you're satisfied with the results).

LinkPizza posted...
And people will pay the cost when they think the cost is worth it, though.

The cost 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...
For example, if oak stead of half the price, it was only a little cheaper, then more people would be fine with Company A.

What is an oak stead and who is Company A?

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...
Also, I have to keep finding the last message quoted and quote the next. Which has almost caused me to skip a whole post once. Luckily, I caught it and was able to reply to it. But that could easily happen again.

I've somehow managed to avoid doing it, despite having to post dozens of quotes in this topic.

Maybe you're just bad at this?

LinkPizza posted...
whole time, I've been saying Target and Wal-Mart should get more because they can afford it. I even said, "You're talking about a small business. I'm talking about the bigger ones. The ones that actually have self-checkout machines and aren't getting more. The ones you think will wait for cheaper ones. Businesses should absolutely get better ones. Getting older ones is just throwing away money.

You're rehashing old arguments I've already debunked.

I've already explained why additional self-checkout machines at Wal-Mart and Target would lead to diminishing returns (they cannot yet automate their entire work force, so adding additional self-checkout lines likely will not result in them being able to hire fewer workers and, as such, will not improve - and may actually hurt - their bottom line.

LinkPizza posted...
And a personal anecdote is sharing a short story, according to the internet.

So you're admitting you don't know what a personal anecdote is and are just looking up the definition on the internet?

LinkPizza posted...
And what I said wasn't a story. I just asked other people either a question or asked for an opinion and posted what they said.

Which is a personal anecdote. Why?
-Because it is your own personal experience, not something that is reflective of significant analysis or a greater truth.
-Because it is unverifiable, since the only proof you have that these conversations took place and that you're accurately conveying those conversations is you.
-Because it is not statistically significant - personal anecdotes never are.

Your discussions with your colleagues, charming though they may be, are completely immaterial to this post. Again, I can claim that I've spoken to everyone in my city and they all agree with me, which would be its own personal anecdote and not in any way helpful for advancing the discussion, because I can't prove it and even if I could, my city doesn't speak for everyone.

---

LinkPizza posted...
Me saying, "I've literally asked most people I know in real life that I speak with on at least a weekly basis about this. Nobody except for people on this board think everything will be free. The closest was a friend that said what you said which was, "Money is a concept of human labor."" isn't a personal anecdote.

You literally just told a story in that paragraph.

It's a personal anecdote, dude. Accept it.

LinkPizza posted...
It's closer to the results of a sample group of study.

One filled with biases, sampling errors, and insufficient sample size for statistical significance such that it would never be accepted as valid in any serious discussion, if indeed it actually happened at all.

But sure, call it that if it makes you feel better.

LinkPizza posted...
And last part was just telling you what one person actually said. And he honestly disagrees with nearly everything else you said...

Cool. All my friends agree with everything I say too.

Are we done with this ridiculous tangent? I don't care whether or not your friends agree with you or not - they're not here, I'm not talking with them, and even if all of them actually did disagree with everything I said, that has nothing to do with whether or not I'm right.

LinkPizza posted...
For context, people already use machines to make a bunch of stuff. And that stuff still cost money.

Yes, because it is currently impossible to completely remove humans from that process. There are costs in that process because human labour is still involved, whether that's in designing the machines or mining the materials or performing maintenance and planning, humans still do plenty of tasks in even the most automated of processes.

Costs and money will continue to exist for as long as humans are involved, however tangentially, in a process. Only when we reach a state where robots can do absolutely everything in a process will money cease to exist in a meaningful fashion.

LinkPizza posted...
You're the one using confirmation bias, if anything. You're just assuming you're right when history actually shows us you're wrong.

Past events are not reliable predictors of future changes, not on the subject of something like technology. To demonstrate:

If we were having this conversation in 1900, you would be saying that cars will never be widespread and we will continue to ride horses, because in 10,000 years of human history we've always rode horses and never had widespread cars.

If we were having this conversation in 1950, you would be saying that personal computers will never be widespread, because in 10,000 years of human history we've never had that level of technology in our homes for personal use.

If we were having this conversation in 1980, you would be saying that cell phones will never be widespread, because in 10,000 years of history we've always used traditional forms of communication and never had cell phones.

Automation is a game changer. Like cars or smart phones or computers or the internet. You cannot use "history" to justify your views when talking about a new technological intervention.

LinkPizza posted...
If you were right, then all those factories when things are built by machines would be giving us stuff for free. But they aren't.

There are no completely automated factories.

Also, you're completely misconstruing my argument, but that doesn't really surprise me at this point.

LinkPizza posted...
But if you think things will change, where are they getting free material. Because the person mining/making the material with robots will charge for it since he needs that money to survive and maintain his robots. The parts aren't free. And will never be. The problem is there's not way to end money. And robots themselves will cost money to buy and maintain. So, people will still need money to live...

Robots and resources will continue to cost money for precisely as long as humans are involved in their manufacture/maintenance/extraction. Is there a human mine supervisor? He needs to be paid, money still exists. Is there a technician responsible for troubleshooting the robots? He needs to be paid, money still exists.

In a fully automated future, where the robots can mine things unsupervised, build themselves unsupervised, maintain themselves unsupervised, who is getting paid? Answer: no one, there are no humans involved in the process *to* pay and, therefore, no money necessary to pay them.

I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble understanding this. It's really not a difficult concept, but you keep messing up the particulars.

---

LinkPizza posted...
And when I said literally everyone, it was obviously the figurative literally.

Otherwise known as "figuratively", which is the opposite of "literally".

Don't get upset at me because of your poor choice of words.

LinkPizza posted...
Also, if I'm using the Alleged Centainty fallacy, you're also using it, but just with the opposite opinion...

So far you've basically said, "No, u!" to every time I've pointed out a fallacy you've used, while failing to demonstrate that you actually know what it means.

The Alleged Certainty (not "Centainty", whatever that is) fallacy is claiming that your viewpoint is true because "everyone knows it". At no point have I alleged that "everyone knows" that my viewpoint is correct.

Again, please educate yourself on these terms before you try to use them and wind up being completely wrong. You'll save us both a lot of time.

LinkPizza posted...
You're using the music example. But I'm talking about physical things.

What music example and where are you talking about physical things?

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...
Machines make the cars, but will still pay a ton for them. Machines put roombas together, and they still cost like $800 dollars.

Because humans are involved in the process.

Dude, I have pointed this out ages ago - money is a measure of human labour. If humans are completely removed from the process, then costs can and will drop to zero, but unless and until that happens, yes, things will still cost money.

Right now, robots do not mine out a bunch of resources and turn it into a roomba with no human involvement. Factories that make cars still have humans overseeing the process. So yes, they still cost money and trying to pretend that those are comparables to what I've been arguing is being deliberately disingenuous.

LinkPizza posted...
I mean, many people already don't even like robots:

Counterpoints:

https://www.fastcompany.com/90236717/its-okay-to-love-robots
https://360.here.com/how-human-like-will-the-robots-of-the-future-need-to-be
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/04/robots-human-relationships/583204/

LinkPizza posted...
Though, its already not free since you usually have to pay for it in you home. Even on your phone, it's part of your phone bill.

Go to a public library or Starbucks or one of a zillion other places that offer free wifi if you're that concerned about a small bill at the end of the month.

More to the point, yes, those things are still free. If your friend buys you lunch, do you think, "This isn't *actually* free, since I bought him a birthday present last month and if I hadn't done that, he wouldn't be my friend and I wouldn't get this lunch"? No, those are two unrelated events. Or if you get a free sample at the supermarket, do you think, "This isn't free, I drove here and had to pay for gas for my car"? Of course not, that's dumb.

When you pay for your phone, your power, your internet, you are paying for those things, not what you access with them. You might have to pay more for things online, or you might get things for free. Suggesting that it's not actually free because a phone bill exists is ridiculous hair-splitting and completely dodges the actual point of this tangent, which is that people are producing goods and spreading them at zero cost to the end user.

That is only possible due to increases in technology. In ye olden times, if I wrote a book and I was inclined to give it away for free, I wouldn't be able to because simply making the book costs money. Nowadays, if I write a digital book I can make as many copies of it as I want, for zero dollars, because copy-and-paste is free. In theory, I could give a copy to every single person on the planet who had a device capable of reading it and neither they nor I would have to pay a dime.

Robots are the next step in that evolution, where the last vestiges of human involvement in the supply chain can eventually be removed, allowing all costs to eventually reduce to zero.

LinkPizza posted...
And food and lodgings is usually what cost people the most.

Depends on your income bracket, honestly.

---

LinkPizza posted...
You also need to pay for whatever you're using the internet on, though. And the internet bill.

You're talking about a one-time fee of a few hundred dollars, followed by a monthly bill that could be less than $50, in return for materials which, just 30 years ago, would have run you tens of thousands of dollars (add up how much it would cost for hard copies of all the free Youtube videos, music, books, forums, etc. you consume in a month - the numbers go up remarkably quickly).

You're basically making my argument for me at this point.

LinkPizza posted...
And not everybody could live comfortably.

Honestly, if you can't live "comfortably" on a standard of living that would have placed you in the top 1% of earners 50 years ago, that says more about you than the current state of the world.

LinkPizza posted...
Some people like playing new games that come out, which aren't free. Or watching certain shows that are only on certain sites like NetFlix, Hulu, Disney+, etc..., which all cost money.

None of this in any way disproves anything I've said.

I said free material is available, not that everything is free. Seriously, why did you even bring this up, it has nothing to do with anything I've said.

LinkPizza posted...
I don't see how people are going to give everything away for free when they need that money to buy and maintain the robots.

Who are they paying when the robots are building and maintaining themselves?

If your parents gave you a robot that could constantly repair itself and go out and build copies of itself using resources it harvested without your involvement, who would you need to pay money to?

LinkPizza posted...
And also pay for everything that need to live and stuff...

If robots are handling that, who are you proposing they pay money to?

LinkPizza posted...
And you say it's gone against the economic trend in the last 30 years, but that's wrong. In the last 30 years, many factories have become automated, meaning it cost less to make a bunch of certain things.

If you are posting on this forum, you have access to more material right now - without paying anything more than you're already paying - than anyone on the planet 30 years ago. Youtube alone has more hours of video content than anyone in the world could access 20 years ago, and all of it is right at your fingertips, for free, where the only imposition on you is that you occasionally have to watch a few seconds worth of ads (contrast that with cable TV, where you need to pay for the cable service *and still* have to watch several minutes of ads every half-hour).

If you only look at the high end of the scale, yes, it looks like things have gotten more expensive; but if you look in the aggregate, there is far more stuff available for a far, far, far lower price tag now than at any point in human history. That is what digitization and automation has brought us and what it will continue to bring us in ever-greater quantities as we move into a more automated future.

LinkPizza posted...
And I've explained why they need money in many other post.

Who is "they"?

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.

---