| Topic List | |
|---|---|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:40:47 AM #201: |
LinkPizza posted...They don't need to - one altruist simply needs to upload the plans for a self-perpetuating robot online and you'll be able to make your own (or have a friend make it for you). LinkPizza posted...Humans will require compensation for as long as they require other humans to do things to facilitate their survival. As soon as robots take over industries needed for human survival (food production, housing, etc.), that no longer holds true. LinkPizza posted...Sure, but the shift to digital is generally accepted as the main reason they went bankrupt. LinkPizza posted...They were a Fortune 500 company that employed 140,000 employees worldwide in the 1980s; they currently employ roughly 20,000 employees, had to declare bankruptcy, and make less than 10% of what they did just 15 years ago. Saying "they're still around" is grossly misrepresenting their current state and how well they weathered the technology shift from film to digital. LinkPizza posted...>Says they failed for a lot more reasons than the shift to digital. >Starts talking about how the shift to digital killed them. Do you even know what you're arguing at this point? LinkPizza posted...What shouldn't even be a question? 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...Again, don't get upset at me for your own bad grammar. Proofread your posts next time. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:42:32 AM #202: |
LinkPizza posted...Because it will do the job a lot better than you can. You have less of a chance of winding up hurt or dead with a robot at the wheel than yourself. That's not my opinion, that is cold hard fact. You choosing to continue driving instead of trusting an AI is putting yourself and others at greater risk, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. LinkPizza posted...No such thing in the world of self-driving cars. LinkPizza posted...Again, the machine is statistically better than both of you. You objectively have far more reason to trust the AI than anyone you know. LinkPizza posted...Commerce doesn't care about feelings or soul and appealing to them is not a reasonable argument. Sure, you might treasure a gift from a grandmother who hand-quilted you a blanket as a present. AI aren't going to replace that and I never said they would. But that situation covers significantly less than 1% of all textile manufacture. Machines can and will do that job better, faster, and cheaper than any human worker and that will be sufficient for nearly all forms of production. LinkPizza posted...This opinion, grammatically challenged though it may be, is not widely held. Moreover, they didn't do very well in stopping the industrial process, so I wouldn't get your hopes up for following the same path. LinkPizza posted...Human driving on roadways will one day be banned for the same reason drunk driving and driving without a seat belt are currently banned - it's not safe and a far safer alternative is available. LinkPizza posted...Sure - I mean, there are still morons who still drink and drive or refuse to drive without a seat belt. But those people are idiots and are widely derided as so. I never claimed these changes won't happen without a fight. Of course they will - reactionary people who don't understand science still exist and will continue to exist in the future. They will fight this change because they don't understand it and don't realize it will save tens of thousands of lives every year. And, much like the dinosaurs still drinking and driving, they will eventually be caught and stamped out. They will have a far harder time hiding their law-dodging, because an AI-driven car force will eventually result in traffic controls being taken away (no need to bother with things like stoplights or stop signs when cars can simply talk to one another as they approach the intersection and coordinate who gets to go when in order to maximize efficiency). --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:43:33 AM #203: |
LinkPizza posted...When your context clues are ambiguous to the point of worthlessness, that reflects more on your inability to write coherent counterpoints than anything I'm doing. I'm not going to waste my time crawling through the topic trying to figure out what you're responding to if you can't be bothered to put in the bare minimum effort to actually state the subject you're responding to or quote the section in question. LinkPizza posted...Your personal anecdotes are not statistically significant. We literally just went through this. LinkPizza posted...Good businesspeople operate on facts, not ill-informed gut feelings. Once the financial driver is there, they will do it. LinkPizza posted...Way too low of a price for 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...In which case, everywhere that enacts such bans will rapidly fall behind those who allow them, until they are rendered effectively obsolete and will be forced to adapt. Every country that has tried to ban progress, from "Celestial Empire" Japan in the pre-Meiji Restoration era to the late stages of the Qing dynasty in China, has seen themselves fall into stagnation and malaise before ultimately being forced into the future (usually at gunpoint from hostile foes). LinkPizza posted...And are now widespread, proving my point. LinkPizza posted...I may think what makes the point that AI drivers are better? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:44:19 AM #204: |
LinkPizza posted...Which is a point in favour of self-driving cars, because if we switch over to self-driving cars we will be able to raise the speed limits, thanks to the fact that AI drivers see better, are more attentive, and can react faster than any human drivers, allowing them to safely travel at higher speeds. LinkPizza posted...Numbers that will rapidly drop when the technology starts going more prime time and people start seeing the practical benefits, from lower car insurance costs, to increased leisure time. People tend to be bad at predicting technological futures. I'm sure if you asked people 30 years ago, you'd probably see 48% say they'd never own a cell phone (because back then they were mostly rich-people toys that few people owned and few saw the purpose of, given that payphones were everywhere and were a fraction of the cost) or that they'd never get an internet connection (back then the internet was a nerd toy and little more than that). Things change and they change pretty quickly. LinkPizza posted..."Not ready for primetime" is a very nebulous statement that I wouldn't put much stock into. What are people referring to with that? Commercial vehicles or personal? Urban driving or rural? Depending on the answers, I might agree with them. The technology isn't perfect and parts of it are still under development; but in certain applications, it is 100% ready for prime time and that really isn't arguable based on facts. Asking a bunch of people, the overwhelming majority of whom know nothing about AI, their opinions on self-driving cars is kind of like asking random people whether they think we should be using fusion-bonded epoxy coatings or triple-layer polyethylene for our underground infrastructure - they don't have the technical knowledge to meaningfully answer the question, so their opinions are basically worthless. LinkPizza posted...And we're four for four on the "No U!" responses now. Literally none of those surveys address the point you were responding to, where you claim that "most people" want to own cars rather than have a lower cost rental that can pick them up and drop them off anywhere on demand. So yes, you are 100% using the False Consensus effect. And I am 100% not, because at no point did I say that "everyone supports AI" or anything similar (again, please learn what these terms actually mean if you're going to try to use them - it's just sad that I have to correct you on this). I am fully aware that not everyone does because uneducated people exist who don't understand how AI works or what the statistics are behind them. People fear what they don't understand and most people don't understand AI. Once they see it first hand, that issue will resolve itself. LinkPizza posted...We weren't even talking about "enjoyment" at this part of the debate, but whatever. You basically just said that only a third of people really enjoy driving; most are neutral on it, with some decidedly negative. Your own source scuppers your point. LinkPizza posted...Largely because with most of your points you clearly haven't. LinkPizza posted...People would not riot over having their cars drive them places. Citation: people did not riot when forced to give up their horses and buggies for cars. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:45:14 AM #205: |
LinkPizza posted...And? I never said this is going to be fast in coming. Before a law mandating self-driving cars would be viable, they'd have to be widespread. That's going to take several decades. It will happen, though - we don't permit unsafe activities when a safer alternative becomes viable. LinkPizza posted...Enjoy sitting at home then, I guess. LinkPizza posted...Hey, another Trumpian "many people" statement, and an unsourced one to boot. LinkPizza posted...You realize both those companies are heavily invested in the self-driving auto industry and are aiming longterm to replace their human drivers with self-driving cars, yes? Hell, both of them operate on the "press a button on your phone, car arrives and drives you to your destination, then leaves" business model I was talking about that you claimed was so terrible. LinkPizza posted...On what metric? LinkPizza posted...Sounds like the issue is not the business model, but its implementation then. You just admitted this sort of business can be successful, so the rest of your protests on this point are basically meaningless. Thanks for the concession. LinkPizza posted...The context was not in the very next sentence, because you literally just had to go back to one of my previous quotes to explain what you were responding to, something you should have done in the first place. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:46:19 AM #206: |
LinkPizza posted...Probably. Hey, you know what's cheaper than owning a car? Being part of the car subscription service we were just talking about. Which was a point I raised a few weeks ago, so congratulations on catching up. LinkPizza posted...How are they going to get cars if, as you've just admitted, they can't afford them? LinkPizza posted...11 years ago was the depths of a little event called "The Great Recession", something that disproportionately affected young people. It had a bit of an impact on the ability of people to buy cars. LinkPizza posted...Your personal anecdotes are not statistically significant. I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating that before it sinks in. I have no idea why you keep bringing these stories up. They add absolutely nothing to the debate. I couldn't respond to them even if I wanted to, which I don't, and even if I did, it means absolutely nothing in the context of what's being discussed. LinkPizza posted...Because everything you just mentioned have humans involved, making them less convenient and more expensive than a self-driving car would be in the same situation. A self-driving car does not need to pay a wage; you just need to compensate it for fuel and car wear-and-tear for however long you "borrow" it, which is significantly less expensive than owning your own car. LinkPizza posted...We have those for people who leave their keys in the ignition; somehow we get by without people swearing off cars in a rage. LinkPizza posted...Those people better never go outside then, because there are security cameras everywhere. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:47:10 AM #207: |
LinkPizza posted...That sounds like something the car rental company would probably want to know about for sanitary reasons, so you're really not helping your case here by saying that cameras shouldn't be in the car to see it. LinkPizza posted...So if they're dirty, send it in for cleaning (something the AI can do by itself) and charge the bill to whoever dirtied it. Problem solved. LinkPizza posted...Weird how some pretty smart people have made a successful business model with it then. You act like this is an idea that hasn't already been implemented. The only thing that separates this from current Car Share programs is the self-driving aspect of it. LinkPizza posted...Something that would be picked up by the car's cameras. You would also have a record of who got in the car (since they would need to identify themselves to order the car), making it pretty easy to track down the culprit. LinkPizza posted...Uber's entire business model is predicated on that. They literally have yet to turn a profit because their entire business is not designed to work with human drivers and is unprofitable when they're in the picture. They're basically laying the ground work and banking on self-driving cars taking over the leg work so that the money flows to them instead of the drivers. There's a reason why they're one of the biggest investors in self-driving cars despite not being a big tech firm. LinkPizza posted...You're worried about leaving a phone behind but not about a kid dying? Says a lot, man. LinkPizza posted...Again, Uber is banking on this happening within the next 10 years. Pretty sure I trust their opinion on it more than yours. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:48:03 AM #208: |
LinkPizza posted...Switching to "the Uber model" leads to fewer cars on the road, not more, which is beneficial from pretty much every angle. LinkPizza posted...And what does that distinction change about the point? LinkPizza posted...Assuming they can get by without a garage/driveway. Most cannot. LinkPizza posted...Not if renting is cheaper. The advantage to the rental model is you only pay for the car when you are using it; when you own a car, you pay for it always, whether it is being driven or just sitting around doing nothing. LinkPizza posted...Assuming you live near a transit stop. And also that your destination is near a transit stop. And that the route between them is relatively direct. Transit is cheap, but inefficient, unless you happen to be lucky enough to be a straight shot from your destination via a transit line. For most people, this is not the case. A rent-a-self-driving-car system allows the car to pick you up wherever, drive you wherever, all for a reasonable rate. LinkPizza posted...Any standstill traffic that affects a car is going to affect a bus even worse (since the bus isn't going direct to a single destination). You're not helping your case here. LinkPizza posted...See? You can do it if you try! Congratulations on working out a basic function of conversation! --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:49:14 AM #209: |
LinkPizza posted...Then all you've proven is that you don't know what future tech is. Allow me to educate you. Future tech is technology that isn't available yet and/or hasn't been created yet and is still theoretical or conceptual in nature. It is not, as you're misattributing here, technology that is available but not widespread. If the technology is available for commercial purchase, it is not, by definition, future tech. I would think "Technology that exists in the present is, by basic English knowledge, not future tech" would be an unneeded statement, but apparently I was wrong... LinkPizza posted...I already answered you - whatever you want to teach it to do. LinkPizza posted...Yes - it can do whatever you want to teach it to do. Why are you asking the same question multiple times when it has already been answered? LinkPizza posted...Because it has not learned that function. If you want to teach it to do that, you can do so. LinkPizza posted...It does work the way it's supposed to. The fact that it is still relatively primitive does not mean it is not working as intended. Saying, "It's early days" does not mean that the technology isn't functioning correctly, it means the current functionality of the tech is low and it will be a while before this particular technology sees widespread use, as it still needs to be developed and improved further. What you're saying is like claiming that space travel is future tech because it isn't widespread yet, despite the fact that we've been travelling to and from space for almost a century now. LinkPizza posted...In other words you were demonstrating that you don't know what "future tech" means and using an incorrect definition of the term. Yes, we noticed. LinkPizza posted...And that's the fifth "No, u!" argument of the post. You have a bad habit of projection, did you know that? There's better approaches to arguing than, "I am rubber, you are glue". --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:50:15 AM #210: |
LinkPizza posted...Buy it from who? If robots are mining the materials and making the robot, there's no one to buy it from. You still don't seem to understand what "fully automated future" entails, nor why it precludes the possibility of money still existing by definition. LinkPizza posted...Bullshit. 500 hours of video are uploaded to Youtube every minute, nearly all of which are available to view for free. How many free songs could you get in 1985? How many free videos? How many free video games? How many of those can you get now? Answer: so many that you literally couldn't watch/listen to/play them all in your entire life, even if you did nothing else between now and your death. LinkPizza posted...Why are you adding the "physical" qualifier? That was never what this tangent was about. You've apparently forgotten, but this entire side-discussion started because you refused to acknowledge that sometimes people are willing to create and release things for free. At no point was it ever stipulated that these things must be physical; indeed, we were originally talking about things like video games or art, which are digital creations. At this point, you're simply moving the goal posts to avoid acknowledging that you've lost this point by being cornered into trying to claim that there isn't actually free shit (while posting on a completely free web forum, I might add). LinkPizza posted...I've said this dozens of times now - money is an expression of human labour, and as long as humans are involved in the process, money will still be involved. I don't understand why you're still confused about this very basic concept. Are we in a fully automated future right now? No? Then money will still change hands, because humans are involved in the process. Why do you find that so difficult to understand? I've explained this to you numerous different times. We pay money for the human parts of a process, not the automated parts. That's where the roomba discussion came in. If you have a maid that vacuums your house, you will have to pay her each time she comes over and vacuums because she is a human doing labour for you; if you have a roomba or other automated robot doing the job, you do not have to pay them every time they vacuum, because that is the automated portion of the process and you do not pay anyone for an automated process. Do you still have to spend money to buy the roomba in the first place? Or to charge it after it's finished? Yes, because those things are not automated right now and humans are involved in roomba manufacture and power generation. I am still baffled as to why this is so difficult for you to understand. It really is a very simple concept. LinkPizza posted...What store? 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...I'm going to teach you about something called "supply and demand", because apparently you haven't learned about this yet. The greater the supply of an item and/or the lower the demand, the lower the price goes; the lower the supply of an item and/or the greater the demand, the higher the price goes. Businesses will automatically seek an equilibrium where supply and demand are in balance in order to maximize profit for each unit sold. Let's say Store A and Store B both sell widgets. Both of them decide to automate, which winds up halving their overhead. Store A decides it's going to pocket the difference in profit; Store B, realizing the opportunity, decides to halve its prices and maintain the same profit per unit sold. Since Store B is now selling for much lower than Store A, they have now create, in essence, a supply glut. Store A must now lower their prices or else lose all of their business to Store B, which is selling the same product for a fraction of the cost. I know this seems complicated, but I can assure you it isn't. LinkPizza posted...What? --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:51:14 AM #211: |
LinkPizza posted...It's far more common that the video creator *is* the person who made the song. LinkPizza posted...Already went over this above. If you're paying to access the internet (reminder: free wifi exists), that still doesn't make something you get online "not free" any more than a free sample you get in a store isn't "free" because you had to buy gas for your car to get there. If you're going into that (frankly ridiculous) extreme, nothing is free. Please stop being pedantic and dodging the point. You're just deliberately refusing to acknowledge that the internet is loaded with free shit that wasn't around 30 years ago. LinkPizza posted...None of which disproves my point, which is that there are a tonne of free pictures on the internet that are just a Google search away. All you've said here is, "Not every picture online is free", which is not even close to what I was saying. Are there free, completely legal pictures online? Yes? Lots of them? Then my statement is true. You can whine about how some people are stealing pictures and how your Aunt Miriam's picture isn't on Google, but that's not a response to anything I said. I never said everything online was free or even every picture; just that there's a tonne of free pictures out there and that's unarguably true. LinkPizza posted...I'm curious at this point, since you keep making this logical error - does the phrase, "There's free stuff on the internet" not imply that you already have access to the internet? Like... that does make sense to you, right? You understand the linguistic convention at play there? If I say, "They're doing a free giveaway on the local radio station", you can't reasonably argue, "No they're not! It's not free! You had to buy the radio, didn't you?!". I mean, I guess you could argue that, but literally no one would take you seriously if you did. LinkPizza posted...Except... they don't. I can download a picture right now for free. Do you want me to give you instructions on how to do it? LinkPizza posted...Which is not a counterpoint to the statement, "There are free photos on the internet." LinkPizza posted...Not all videos have ads. And even if they do, you're still not paying any money for them. They are free. You, the consumer, need pay not a thing for them. That is the definition of "free". If you are concerned about ads, I can send you a video right now, for free. It doesn't have any ads, I promise, and it won't cost either of us any money for me to send it to you. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:52:14 AM #212: |
LinkPizza posted...You keep making this bizarre assertion that if you can point out some things that aren't free that means that nothing is free. You realize that doesn't make basic logical sense, right? Again, I never said everything was free; just that there's a lot of free stuff out there. LinkPizza posted...It does, actually - it's free from your perspective because you paid no money for it. Again, saying, "It's not free if someone paid for it!" is completely ridiculous, because someone pays for everything. If I give you a free sample of a product, well, I paid to make that product, so I guess it's not free, right? Except... no one defines it that way. Something is free if it is given to you and you don't have to pay for it. You keep trying to twist yourself into logical pretzels to explain why a bevy of things you don't have to pay for on the internet aren't "really" free, but it simply doesn't work. Did you pay for them? No? Then they're free for you. Go enjoy them. LinkPizza posted...It's kind of entertaining watching how far you have to stretch yourself to try desperately to avoid acknowledging the simple truth that these things are all free. Apparently "information" counts as money these days... BTW, you can falsify information if you're that concerned about your G-mail account spying on you. LinkPizza posted...Pretty sure Microsoft hasn't scammed anyone using the information in your e-mail, bro. LinkPizza posted...Great, thanks for admitting I'm right! LinkPizza posted...If an author puts their own story online, for free, then yes, it should be online for free. LinkPizza posted...I never said all of them, nor was that a prerequisite of the point being made, so I have no idea why you're desperately trying to steer the conversation back here aside from the fact that you have no other defence beyond moving the goal posts. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:53:17 AM #213: |
LinkPizza posted...No, it wouldn't. Seriously, why would it? You claimed that no one would put their artistic creations online and make them available unless they were paid. You also claimed that automation and digitization don't make things cheaper and that "history" showed that things get more expensive over times. I proved both of those arguments wrong by pointing out that there is now a bevy of free material online that wasn't there 30 years ago. You denied that, so I gave you examples of a bunch of free stuff. EVERYTHING does not need to be free for that argument to hold true. At this point, you're deliberately misconstruing my argument just to avoid the simple truth that you have been badly proven wrong on this point. LinkPizza posted...That's odd, because I posted over 10,000 free games from a single site, and there are many more out there. LinkPizza posted...All of which also have games available for free. https://blog.playstation.com/2021/03/17/play-at-home-2021-update-10-free-games-to-download-this-spring/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/store/top-free/games/pc https://www.nintendo.com/games/free-to-start-games/ LinkPizza posted..."New, Triple-A games" (i.e. the ones that just went from $60 to $70) are not most games. For every $70 retail game that gets pushed out, a hundred free/freemium games get released on mobile or PC or on random websites. While the highest price you can pay is now more expensive, the average price of a new video game has never been cheaper. That's simple fact. LinkPizza posted...Are you paying money? No? Then it's free. That's the literal definition of the word. Saying paying with information makes it not free is like saying that a free sample in a store isn't free because you had to spend time to take it from the person offering it to you. LinkPizza posted...I'm aware of what you said; you still seem to be blind to the fact that this portion of it is an admission that I'm right. It was then and it still is now. LinkPizza posted...Some stuff isn't free =/= nothing is free. Please learn the difference. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:54:58 AM #214: |
LinkPizza posted...If you live in a city, I 100% guarantee you several businesses offer complimentary wifi. LinkPizza posted...Which doesn't make them not free, as described above. LinkPizza posted...No, you were denying that things got cheaper over time and claimed they got more expensive instead (which isn't how human progress works). I pointed out that digitization has given us a huge amount of free stuff, which it unarguably has. LinkPizza posted...So? This has nothing to do with what's being discussed. LinkPizza posted...Did you? You asked the same thing twice in one paragraph, except with shoddy spelling the second time. I've already explained all of this above. If you're not paying for something - and you're not, for any of the things mentioned - it's free. It's really not much more complicated than that. If you don't understand what "free" means, you have much bigger problems than I care to help you solve. LinkPizza posted...Where? 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...Because it's literally what you said? Please stop blaming me for your shoddy posting. If you say something dumb, that's on you. It's not my job to correct what you say and make your argument for you. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:56:15 AM #215: |
LinkPizza posted...So learn. There are people who will teach you for free, if you are so inclined. LinkPizza posted...Basic economics lesson #2 for you today - profit is revenue minus overhead cost. If there is a substantial drop in overhead cost (like, for instance, from automating your work force), you can reduce your revenue as well and still earn the same profit per unit sold. Notably, if you can undercut your competitors, you will gain a greater profit overall by attracting their customers with lower prices. Notably, this is *why* we are seeing a lot of those price drops I alluded to above as industries digitize and automate. LinkPizza posted...It does if we have robot vets, robot feed harvesters, and robot butchers. LinkPizza posted...In the short term no, but in the long term it absolutely is. LinkPizza posted...Until we reach a fully automated point, at which point there won't be a human farmer to oversee the robots because one isn't needed. The robots can simply set up shop on whatever land is designated for them. LinkPizza posted...Then you're admitting you don't know how Go works and probably should not be opining on things you very clearly know absolutely nothing about. I don't know if you realize how plainly your complete lack of knowledge of the game comes across in your posts. That's exactly what I was drawing out with those last few statements - an admission from you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Move on to something else - you've lost this point. LinkPizza posted...No, I obviously know you're bullshitting because I actually understand how the game is played. At this point, the best way I can describe you is you're like a blind man pointing at the ocean and saying, "That's red!" - you're plainly wrong, but explaining why when you won't even understand the explanation is honestly a waste of my time. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:57:02 AM #216: |
LinkPizza posted...That you very clearly don't have because - and I cannot stress this enough - you have no idea how the game works. Please just stop talking about Go. It's downright painful watching you pretend to understand a game you have no knowledge of. If you want to discuss chess, go ahead - I'm presuming you actually have some knowledge of the way that game works. But with each post on Go you're doing nothing but exposing your own ignorance more and more. LinkPizza posted...Because if you can't be bothered to spend that bare minimum of effort to actually plainly state what you're talking about instead of vaguely alluding to it and expecting me to scroll back in the debate and figure out what the fuck you're responding to, then your point probably wasn't worth reading in the first place. Either way, I'm not going to waste my time trying to decipher it. You want me to respond to your points despite the fact that you refuse to use quote boxes like a rational person? Then you can provide proper statements that make it immediately clear what you're talking about. Unless and until you do that, expect me to keep calling out when you make some vague, random statement that isn't connected to anything, because it's terrible writing that's a chore to read. LinkPizza posted...So say that! For fuck's sake, what's so difficult about this? You can clearly do this when you actually make the effort. LinkPizza posted...Which is not how AI works, but I guess you think your feelings are more important than facts, so whatever... LinkPizza posted...And AI don't either. LinkPizza posted...Which is exactly what AI do, because they tend to use iterative processes, not "random smooshing", as you so eloquently put it. LinkPizza posted...Please post this sentence in English. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:57:52 AM #217: |
LinkPizza posted...Long term, it most likely will, especially for commercial applications. AI are simply better than we are at this stuff and evolve faster than we can. LinkPizza posted...Which is what humans do as well, as I've already pointed out several times. Maybe don't use "try to keep up", when you're restating an argument I've already debunked a few dozen posts ago. LinkPizza posted...Well, you're not quoting now, so that's not really any great loss from my perspective. LinkPizza posted...If you say, "It's not a statement of fact" and don't actually say what "it" is, then no, you have provided zero context to that quote and have not made clear what you're talking about. You constantly shift topics on the fly, so what "the rest of the paragraph" says is not necessarily related to this one sentence, except in your head. LinkPizza posted...Yes, we can, because AI - like all technology - always gets better. This is like saying, "Who can actually say if computers will get any faster or more powerful?". Yes, in the strictest technical sense it's not a known fact until it actually happens, but everyone knows tech sophistication only goes one way. LinkPizza posted...And that something is what? If you can't answer that question you're just hypothesizing, not actually making an educated assertion. LinkPizza posted...Everything I've said is already here *is* already here. Absolutely none of that is a lie. If you think it is, you've simply failed to understand what I've posted or are being deliberately obtuse. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:58:53 AM #218: |
LinkPizza posted..."This stuff" being what? We've been talking about a lot of different tech in this topic, from stuff already out today to stuff that won't happen for a very long time (fully automated future) and everything in between. To suggest I've put a uniform timeline on EVERYTHING discussed is simply factually wrong. LinkPizza posted...I don't need to twist your words - you do a good enough job of that yourself. Bold claim on the "right" and "wrong", though, especially for someone who has already admitted multiple times that he doesn't know what he's talking about on various things we've been discussing. LinkPizza posted..."Feeling" is a nebulous term. It's not an actual thing - just something that you've emotionally projected onto a work. LinkPizza posted...Again, stop blaming me for your sloppy posting. It is not my fault that you keep making easily-avoidable errors in your posts. Invest in a remedial writing course if you want to solve this issue. LinkPizza posted...You seem to have trouble understanding what context is. Maybe don't knock someone else's reading when your own posts are so full of mangled grammar and misspelled words. LinkPizza posted...So meet with them outside of work. Bam, problem solved. I'm still not sure why you struggled with something that simple. LinkPizza posted...Well, that doesn't speak very highly of your social skills, but more to the point, are your friends just going to ditch you as soon as you stop working? Doesn't sound very friend-like to me. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 4:59:58 AM #219: |
LinkPizza posted...It will be, you'll understand that eventually. LinkPizza posted...The AI is not the robot; those are two different components. The AI is the intelligence; the robot is the physical shell. Physical shells are comparatively easy to build - most robotics hobbyists could build a shell for an AI for a very small cost. All someone needs to do is upload an AI programming module to the internet and people would be set. All it takes is one altruist (or, if we're honest, pirate). LinkPizza posted...That is factually wrong. They are no more (or less) mimics than we are, since we use a similar process to come up with our music. LinkPizza posted...Good luck with that. You've already admitted you couldn't tell the AI-produced music posted earlier in the topic from the real thing. LinkPizza posted...Your interpretation 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...I live where I live. I didn't choose to live here because I thought it would be a good business opportunity. This may surprise you, but people aren't always thinking about maximizing their profit. Could I make more money elsewhere in a place that has more customers? Certainly. I don't really want to, though. LinkPizza posted...Usually, but not always. In my case, it isn't. I honestly don't care if I make a huge amount of money off this business. It's a side-gig for me, not something that puts food on the table. It gets me some extra cash each year, but it's not something that will decide whether I can pay the bills at the end of the month. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 5:00:56 AM #220: |
LinkPizza posted...No, it's not. Not always. A business can be there to provide a service. Or to develop an idea. Or just because its owner wanted to do it as a hobby. There are plenty of reasons to run a business that don't have to do with profit. If you were a business owner yourself, you might understand that. LinkPizza posted...Why are you using past tense? I'm still running this business and still very much enjoying it. And no, at no point have I had trouble with it. I'm more or less maxed out on the profit I can make at my current location and I'm uninterested in moving somewhere more profitable. LinkPizza posted...You did, actually, by assuming that better equipment would improve my profits despite having absolutely no clue what my business entails. LinkPizza posted...Again, why the past tense? You're making it sound like I'm not still running this thing. Which, I suppose, only further highlights that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm curious, do you frequently opine on subjects you have no knowledge of? Because you've done it several times in this topic. LinkPizza posted...Not very well from the sounds of things. LinkPizza posted...Sure you are. Why does it matter that they come from a junkyard specifically? This was an artificial constraint you introduced solely because used car parts frequently show up in a junkyard, but used electronic parts never do. Hence why the conclusion is pointless. That's why I countered with the electronics catalogue. That's similarly constraining the debate by picking a part source that is heavily skewed towards the conclusion I want to push. I did that to illustrate how ridiculous your assertion was. If a hobbyist can get the parts it doesn't matter whether they're sourced from a junkyard, a catalogue, eBay, or a parts dealer - in the end, you can still wind up building a machine. That's the point you should be focusing on, not quibbling over whether they came from a junkyard or not. LinkPizza posted...If you consider heavily constraining the question so as to preclude all answers other than the one that fits your narrative... congrats? I feel like that's pretty low-tier debating, but if you're declaring victory I guess you should take your wins where you can get them. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 5:01:40 AM #221: |
LinkPizza posted...No, it couldn't. If you want to prove that it could, provide a source. Since you've already admitted that you can't, this is pointless speculation on your part. LinkPizza posted...You switch from singular to plural here, so I have no idea what you mean by "it" or "they". Are you talking about self-driving cars? Because those are out now. Widespread self driving cars, such that you won't be able to avoid going in one? Coming soon. Completely self-driving car force with human drivers banned? Decades away. Please, clean up your posts. Reading through these is such a headache. LinkPizza posted...This from the guy who earlier argued he wasn't worried about babies dying in hot cars and who is also pushing hard to keep human drivers around instead of switching to AI, something that will cost tens of thousands of people their lives every year. Don't get sanctimonious with me over deaths. Far more people will die to human drivers the longer the switch to AI cars is put off than to this ridiculous non-scenario you've came up with that won't ever happen. LinkPizza posted...You have - and in so doing, admitted this isn't a valid complaint against self-driving cars, since it can happen to humans even easier. LinkPizza posted...Yes, I'm quite aware of that. LinkPizza posted...And they are. LinkPizza posted...We can, because in the scenario you described it would be impossible for AI to behave worse than humans in the circumstances given. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 05/23/21 5:02:32 AM #222: |
LinkPizza posted...Something that is true for humans as well as AI, save for the fact that self-driving cars have more points of view as opposed to a human's one, making it harder to completely obstruct their vision. LinkPizza posted...They won't need to, because the cars that were involved will have their recordings to hand over. LinkPizza posted...Doesn't matter, since more AI drivers will behave more predictably, not less. Each new self-driving car on the road makes the road safer for additional AI cars, not more dangerous. LinkPizza posted...Pointless and baseless scaremongering. Self-driving cars have driven in test facilities filled with other self-driving cars. Carmageddon has not been the end result (somewhat amusingly, the biggest hiccup observed was that the cars were too courteous to one another as a result of each expecting the other car to be an asshole human driver instead of an AI that drove defensively). LinkPizza posted...So prove it. LinkPizza posted...Given how badly you've misrepresented things within this topic alone, I seriously doubt that. You seem to be a fan of making up stuff that didn't happen, so I honestly don't trust you to accurately recollect a conversation we had years ago. LinkPizza posted...You know who doesn't have a lot of money that lets them dodge legal obligations? Municipal governments. Take a guess at who is running bus routes. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:20:41 AM #223: |
For the context clues, you don't have to scroll back a dozen post. As I said if you would read what I typed it was that the clues are usually in the next sentence or two. Context clues aren't going to be in different post. Most aren't even going to be in a different paragraph. Context clues were in the very next sentence most of the time. Though, I pointed out most of them in my last slew of posts. And my context clues aren't ambiguous to the point of worthlessness. You just seem to have trouble reading more than one sentence at a time for some reason. I even explain in more detail down below in a further post How to use them... And you don't have to crawl through the topic to find what I'm talking about. It's literally in the same paragraph. Usually the sentence before or after the one you quoted. Like right next to it. I can't help it if you're blind or something... You better get used to context clues, though. Adults use them pretty often. And I'll need you to use them. Because normally, If I mention self-driving cars in one sentence, and continue talking about them in the next, I probably won't say self-driving cars again. Because there's no point in doing that. Or maybe you realize your wrong and pretend not to know what the context is to get out of it. Because you seem to think that two sentence can go together to form one whole thought or something... If one sentence doesn't make sense by itself, it's probably goes with the sentence before or after. Before asking for context that is there and looking ridiculous, trying reading more than one sentence and then screeching about no context when it's literally in the next sentence. So many time already, I've showed how if you keep reading, or read the whole thing, context was actually there...
As for copywriting, I'm just telling you what the law said. Something about being able to protect the creative expression associated with a recipe. Which is why I said to an extent. Again, reading is necessary. You can't copyright the ingredients, measurements, cooking processes themselves. And another article also apparently said, "However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection." And the problem I see is that robots will be able to steal those recipes. As they will probably eventually be able to work out everything eventually. Which will cost the restaurants money. I mean, how would you being able to make the restaurant food at home not cost the restaurant money? If you had a robot that could make you the exact same food just like the restaurant does at home for less money, why would you go to pay more at the restaurant for things other than things like parties and get-togethers. So, yes. Having a robot that could make the exact same food as the restaurant would definitely cost them money... And it might not make other restaurants money. Since people would probably just have them make it at home. So, I 100% expect industry reps to step in. Because they will all lose money if they can't sell food because people are getting them at home. And will probably use a ton of money to fight it... Thinking that those food places with secret recipes are just are just going to let robots find out their secret recipes to just give them to whoever is utterly ridiculous. That could make them lose everything. So, they will definitely fight to keep that from happening... As for the Chef's teaching them, just because they can't copyright the recipe in the normal way doesn't mean they are forced to tell anybody the recipe or how to cook it. So, again, Many chefs may not actually teach the robots how to do anything. Which I'm totally fine with... As for stopping people from using a robot to analyze the food, there is an easy way to stop it. Make laws for it, and set restrictions on the robots. Sure, people can hack and get past those restrictions, but not everybody can. The best we can hope for is that no one uses it, and the law will punish those who do. But nobody really thinks of the consequences of that stuff until it affects them in some way. So, I still think the law will try to help out if possible. And I think you misunderstood me. Riots will ensue when restaurants start getting recipes stolen from restaurants all over the world. As in, the people who either work in the restaurants (who lose their jobs because no one is buying food from their restaurants, so they lose their job), or from people who own restaurants who are getting their recipes stolen (especially places like local restaurants). So, yes, I believe riots will ensue when food tasting robots starts ruining people's lives... As for 99% of homes not containing a restaurant quality chef, I wholeheartedly disagree. I believe it is much less than that. Even starting with just the number of people that work in restaurants, or have worked in restaurants, you'd already have more than 1% of homes. And many families have members who cook great food without ever working in a restaurant. I can't honestly say that chance of 99% of homes not having at least one person who can cook quality food in very low. Almost non-existent, if we're being honest... Also, I wasn't saying you couldn't cook your own food, though with us being slaves to the AI and whoever controls the money, maybe we won't be able to. But that was part of the people who can cook part. Some people like to cook and eat their own food, which is why some people actually get really good. Like even restaurant quality good. Which is why it was right after the other stuff... Anyway, we don't know if we'll still be able to cook. Who knows what kind of rules they'll add. I mean, if you really think they'll take away our driving rights, who's to say they won't take away our cooking rights? I mean, apparently, 172,900 home structures fires are started by cooking each year. Maybe they'll deem it too unsafe for humans to cook, as well... And restaurants may even shut down. Who would go to pay at a restaurant most of the time if you could have your own robot do it for you? I mean, a restaurant can't survive on parties and events alone most of the time... And the thing is, the robot doesn't actually have to be perfect on the first try. With something like a painting, it can try many times over. And not only that, but depending on the canvas used, and the type of paint, mistakes could be painted over. Same with food. It could get rid of any piece it feels is imperfect. Even if humans would use something imperfect, the AI might not. It doesn't need to be perfect to make certain things "perfect". Though, apparently, imperfections are what make the art better. According to art experts, I guess. From some of the articles, I saw... Plus, for stuff like art, food, video games, and many other things, they robots don't have to be perfect to make something perfect. They get a chance to try multiple times. You mess up on food, try again... But that doesn't apply for everything (Which I will mention later. So, instead of asking, just keep reading)... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:20:48 AM #224: |
And you say my predictions and theories have no basis in reality, but they have as much as yours do. AI is still in the early stages. You just assume they can do everything when they are still actually trying to test them. That's your problem. You act like you actually know everything about them, and think they can do everything when you have nothing to actually base it on. Obviously, there are still many things that need to be worked on. If there weren't, then they'd be more commonplace, But they're not. That's showing you don't actually know much about them yourself... As for the food, the problem is that not everyone actually knows what they want different with the food. People barely know how to ask for food as it is. To ask a robot to cook it different would be hard if they don't even know what they want different about it... You see it all the time. Many people think they want something slightly different, but they don't know how to explain it. Sometimes, they ask for less of a certain ingredient, when that ingredient isn't even in the dish. People don't even actually know what they always want. But sometimes, the better chefs know what they want. And can figure it out. If you tell a robot that you want less of an ingredient that isn't even in the dish, they'll probably end up making it the same since there was nothing to change since the ingredient was never in the dish to begin with. Especially since it would be weird for the robot to do something you don't ask it to do. Because the robot is doing exactly what you tell it to do. Where a chef might actually know what the customer wants because he may actually get that request often... So, you educate yourself instead...
And again, telling it you liked it better last time doesn't do anything. You would need to give it some kind of direction to move to. Without any direction, saying you liked it better last time just causes it to make it the same as last time. Because it assumes you like it that way... You can't reach perfection if you don't have direction to go in. That like if my friend told me to take him to his house. And all he kept saying was "not here" every time I asked where it was. Or kept saying, "It's the other way." But only when I was a couple towns over... And my point about getting a stuff made a certain way at certain restaurant can kill a restaurant. Take burgers. If you could go to McDonalds and get a Red Robin or Fuddruckers burger at McDonalds price, that effectively kills Red Robin and Fuddruckers. Who would pay the prices at those 2 restaurants when you can get them cheaper at McDonalds? Which is the whole point. This actually kills many restaurants. That's why I think it's a bad idea to just let the robots cook whatever they want at any store. That's the literally problem. And you're basically praising he robot to kill businesses... That's one my big problems with AIs. Now you're not just taking jobs. But literally killing businesses and putting more people out of work... especially since people will still need money... And there would be no way for them to get a cut of the proceeds from the robots. When your own personal robot cooks food, you don't pay the robot. Buying the robot only gives money to the place you bought it from when you bought it. But if you already own the robot, it just makes food from the ingredients you have. You wouldn't pay it, nor would it charge you to make any food... You would still have to buy the ingredients, but that different. And that doesn't help the restaurant in any way... Just because our financial system hasn't collapsed yet doesn't mean much. Especially in this age where people are getting better with technology. People are getting better and better at hacking. To the point where I think it was Google using hackers to make their systems better. Not only that, but if someone is able to hack an AI, or at least get the AI to do whatever it wants, they could probably use the AI to actually hack banks. But if we go back to my original point, it was that putting stuff, especially AI, on a network could end up really bad. Because like banks, it could make them easier to hack... As for my information, I'm getting them from sites. I even showed you the sites. And pointed out specific parts. Even on the sites you showed me (like the one with the small bus), it still doesn't ever prove anything. Like how all the sites with the small bus never mentioned any of them being handicapped capable. As for your "knowledge of AI", it seems like you're just pulling stuff out of nowhere. While I don't know everything about how AI works, I do know they aren't perfect like you seem to think they are. And I'm not opposed to all technology. I'm opposed to technology that takes jobs away from people. If the technology was assisting instead of replacing, then it's fine. So if anyone is making kneejerk reactions, it seems to be you since I'm pulling my info from articles and stuff... Like I'm not just making up these flaws. I'm getting them from articles. Like the articles that said self-driving cars can be hacked and they're trying to fix that right now, for example. They used the phrase "particularly susceptible", apparently... And you act like I'm the only one making predictions. But that's literally what you're doing, too. You do realize that, right? Everything we say are predictions because nobody actually knows what the future holds. You can guess all you want. But the future isn't set in stone yet. At least, not for us... So go ahead and bold all the predictions. But you might as well bold all your posts that deal with the future, as well... And defenses are improving. But I believe hackers are improving faster. Especially if some companies like Google have decided to hire hackers to help with their defenses... And again, you misunderstand. You're the one who said the AI could do more than cook food, right? So, when I say it could be hacked to get your personal info, I'm not talking about how you like you food cooked. I'm talking about things like Name, Address, SSN, CC info, etc... The info that your AI might have stored for various reasons. You're definitely being disingenuous if you thought I was talking about people learning how you liked your food cooked. Really? Try harder next time... As for the cost, I'm talking about the cost of anything. I'm saying people will pay the cost of anything, as long as they think the cost is worth it. Literally no context is needed. It's pretty simple to understand, but I understand that you don't even understand context clues, anyway... You were the one who said, "People "want" a lot of things, but aren't willing to pay the cost." So, I said, "People will pay the cost when they think the cost is worth it"... It quite simple... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:22:01 AM #225: |
Oak stead was actually supposed to be "instead". I probably wrote that on my phone, which changes corrects words into other things. Like when it changes "Haha" into Haphazard. So, it says, "For example, if instead of half the price, it was only a little cheaper, then more people would be fine with Company A." And the context is literally what we were talking about. I'm pretty sure you only mentioned something about company A and B once. Are you saying you can't even remember you own post from like a week or so ago? If you can't even remember your own comment from a week ago, that sounds like you don't even believe in what you're saying and are just making things up on the spot or something... I can even remember what you said without reading it. You would think you would remember what you wrote... And it's not that I'm bad at quoting. It's because you keep quoting more and more. Since you keep making more, it takes longer for me to keep going back and forth. Hence why I stopped quoting. That and a few other reasons. This is much easier. You could do it, too. Unlike you, I actually understand context clues. And actually read the conversation, I know what we are talking about. It would also help you to make less post instead of posting 29 messages... Something to think about...
And my old arguments haven't been "debunked". You just don't' like them. And they don't have to automate their entire work force to get back money on having more self-checkouts. If they had more, they could fire/lay-off more people. Which would start getting them more money since they could pay less people. Not only that, but they could let some of the self-checkouts "rest" sometimes. Which could increase the normal life of them since they didn't have to be used 24/7. Like with 12 lanes (with would be 4 a group like they normally have), they could use 4 a week. Which could increase life by about 3x the original life. Meaning they could have less chance to break. And during heavy buying times (like holidays and such), they could use all 12, plus any humans they still have. It can end up saving them a ton, especially in the long run. Which Target and Wal-Mart should be planning for... So, it would save them money. Paying money up front to pay less over all the years makes them more money when you do the math... I know what a personal anecdote is. But I also look it up to tell you exactly what the internet says about it. Like I do with all my info, I look up stuff to have actual proof. Something you seem to lack a lot of... And the reason mine wasn't a personal anecdote is because it wasn't a story of any kind. I was stating what other people had told me in relation to a question. So, it was an answer, and not a persona anecdote. Unless every time you ask a question, it's a personal anecdote. But it's not. It's an answer, which is what aI gave you. So no, it wasn't a personal anecdote... And it's not unverifiable. Like I said, it was their answers to a question. Verifying it would only take asking them the same question again. If they let me take a voice recording or video, that's all the verification it would need... So, it's not a personal anecdote. And you should learn what one is before claiming somebody else posted one... Also, they are immaterial to any post since all of the stuff I asked them was from these post. So, they are some of the most material answer available... I even gave you examples of personal anecdote, which are different that me telling you the answers and opinions of my co-workers and friends. Also, it's not really that biased. While I work with a lot of them, we don't always agree on things. We actually have a lot of different opinions on many things. We still get along well because we don't really need to agree on everything. Not only that, but their were some that I didn't know too well, either. So it wasn't all friends. But it's still like I said, which is that it's close to the results of a sample group of a study. It'd just be a small one. Like a really small one of like a hundred people or so... And don't blame me for the tangent you started. I stated what happened, and you brought us on this tangent... And while it's impossible to completely remove humans, that doesn't mean the price needs to remain the same. Technically, with less humans, you would think they'd pass on some of the savings to us. But many things still cost the same even after than replaced like half their workforce. And that's because the reason to replace people is for more profits. Which is why even when everyone is replaced, money will still be a thing. The only reason to replace all the people is to make more of a profit. And they will still sell stuff. To even get material for your robot to make stuff, you'll have to pay for it. Because the robots who mine for materials or make materials are owned by someone (And I'm talking about the physical robot, since you seem to get confused sometimes). And that means whoever owns the robots own the materials. And we'll have to pay them for it. Just like we would have to pay to own the robots. I think this is the part you're keep forgetting. Just because they are fully automated doesn't mean anything. Because in the end, someone still owns them. That's what you don't seem to understand. Just because things are fully automated doesn't mean people won't still need to be paid. The robots mine/make the material. You still pay. You aren't paying the robot. You're paying the robot owner since they own whatever the robot mines or makes. So, you seem to be the one that doesn't understand such an easy concept. If my robot is mining some material that's hard to get, that material belongs to me because my robot mined it. So, you would have to pay me for it. Just like others with still have to pay for other materials to buy it from other people. Because someone owns the robots. Or the factory the robots work in. The robots won't own stuff themselves as they are objects to be owned. But if more things get automated, then not many people are going to have money. And the world starts to turn into one of those dystopian futures from different forms of media. I mean, it's easy to see. Even if half of everything was automated, that's a ton of jobs gone. But because so many humans are still working, people still get paid. But only those working. There's barely enough jobs now. Once half of all jobs are gone, we'll have much less. And other jobs could actually afford to pay less since many people would jump at the opportunity to work any job for almost any amount, and people would be easily replaced. It just sounds like a shitty future. But barely anybody will care until it starts to affect them in certain ways. That's the problem... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:22:06 AM #226: |
And there's no real way to just do away with money. And if that was going to be the end game, then places where people make a ton of money won't fully automate because they lose power once they start losing money, or if money was no more. And they won't want to lose any power... And just because people can't make money doesn't mean it disappears. It just means that some (or possibly most) can't make it. It will always be meaningful as long as people need it to get something... You seem to think when everything automated, people are just going to start giving away their products. While that would be nice, people aren't that nice. People will hold those products overhead and hold more power since they have those products. Which means you would need currency to pay for them. But why make a new currency system when you already have one in place? And please don't act like I'm the one misconstruing arguments when you've been doing that the whole time. Normally be taking my quotes out of context, or acting like I'm talking about something else (like above when you were acting like personal info meant how they wanted their food cooked)...
You can still use past events if things haven't changed much to predict the future pretty reliably in many cases. And this is one of those cases. Not technology wise, but based on people. Technology always changes, but people still need money to pay for and buy the things they need to live from others who own it. That won't change in the future because you will still need to buy and own things you need to live. Like buying food, paying rent and bills, buying clothes for different weather and environments, and the materials for whatever it is you need that you could potentially make. If you rent a house, you have to pay the landlord. You want to make something in a fancy 3D printer, you need to buy the materials from someone who has the materials. People aren't going to send a bunch of robots to get/make materials for them and give them away. First, they are probably trying to make back the money they spent on the robots in the first place. And second, they own a bunch of it, so they can use it to get stuff from other people. But again, no point changing currency... But it's not the technology I'm trying to predict most of the time. I don't think their perfect, but that's something different. It's the people that the past is showing us. How they will act, that is... But as for the other stuff technology wise, I personally wouldn't have said cars wouldn't be widespread in the early 1900s. I wouldn't have thought the opposite of that. They actually seemed useful. And technically, it just saved the horses trouble. The poop cleaners would lose their job, but They could get jobs at whatever old timey gas stations were... And carriage drivers could become chauffeurs. Especially since horse get tired to. So, no. I wouldn't have said that. Same thing with computers and cell phones. Though, I'd probably just think computers were better books or something, as I wouldn't know much about them back then. As for cell phones, I figured they'd become wide spread when I was younger, anyway. I was hoping for it, tbh. I wasn't a fan of the big block, but whatever. I use to use texting all the time, even before everyone used it. Those are pretty bad examples. Plus, it's like you haven't heard what I said. I don't hate all technology. I don't like it when they take away someone's job. Assisting them is great. But taking them away is where it gets bad. For example, a cash register and conveyor belt helps a cashier instead of taking their job away. Self-checkout takes their job away, though... If they just made technology to help people do a job safely or easier, that's awesome. But just making a machine to take away their job and financially hurt them sucks... You should know me before telling me what I'd think. I do agree that automation is a game changer, though. But it's a game changer in a bad way, so... (and those two sentences go together, though you'll probably try to use my words out of context...) But the end result is I can use "history" to justify my views because people will still be people, and act like people, in the future... As for literally, it looks like someone has read the dictionary lately. When used informally, it can mean "used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true." Basically, they made it so literally can also mean figuratively these days. Language evolves. It's been like this for a while now... Before you try to correct me on how to use words, maybe learn the definitions first... because it's literally a definition on Google. And you can look it up if you want. It's been there for a while now. I think there may have even been a topic about it when it happened... As for the "No U!" argument, if it's true, it's true. So, it you say something that describes what you're doing, I'll let you know... Also, it seems to be an obviously typo since it's one letter (and 'r' and 'n' actually look pretty similar), but I guess you can pretend you don't know what I was saying. Though, context clues has never been your strong point, so... And the Alleged Certainty fallacy is saying that without proof. As it hasn't happened yet, there can't be any more proof other than history,. Which I did actually point to. That's as much proof as anybody can get right now since we are still in the past. But also, I never said my reason for things not being free is because "everyone knows it." I gave my actual reasons for money still being used. I added the everyone, except some people on this site) part because that actually does seem to be true. Still haven't met someone who thinks that... So, I still haven't use the Alleged Certainty Fallacy... And you'd actually save us a bunch of time if you knew many terms and looked up stuff. I've been giving you a lot of info to counter all yours. You just ignore it or pretend not to understand for whatever reason... Because I'm only met a few people who were more wrong that you (but on different subjects). On this subject, it's you... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:23:06 AM #227: |
As I've said every time you've asked for context, keep reading and you will see it. The whole thing said, "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." So, obviously, the music example is the one you put forward. It's as easy as knowing what you yourself said. You said, "As an example, you can go on Youtube and listen to a song written by a robot for free" as a counterpoint when I said robots would be giving stuff away for free. But I said I was talking about the physical things. Which would be things I mentioned (cars and roombas). Which you literallt talk about in your next post. So, getting context would be as easy as keep reading. Because I mentioned both the music and physical items in the same paragraph... And even then, you still didn't say anything meaningful Even if they aren't free, you would think we'd get some of the savings. I mean, roombas were invented in 2002. The factories have probably become more automated than they were before. Yet Roombas still cost $800. Which is way up from their price in 2002, which was only $200. So, not only did automation not make them cheaper, but they got more expensive... And the extra $600 roombas today aren't even that much better the original, apparently. They did a bunch of tests to see how the original held up to the new ones. And it held up surprisingly well... But it's weird that with their factories being more automated that the average price quadrupled. Things like this is the reason that I can't see any reason to believe that automation will make any cheaper, let alone free... Even though humans aren't completely removed, many still were. Meaning that at the very least, as discount would be nice. But they don't care about customers. They care about profit...
As for your Articles about whether people like robots or not, the first one is talking about a robotic dog. Which seems closer to the kid toys. Not to mention, they're not comparing it to robots, but to different types of "dolls", as they call them... But it's mostly shows that people love toys. And the third one says for that for better or for worse, it will change how we interact with each other. And it wasn't that interacting with the robot made them better. But interacting with mistake riddled ones. Which isn't what we want. Earlier, I mentioned how robot wouldn't be perfect, and said it was ok for things we there was do-overs (art, video games, food, etc.)... But there are things I can't have my AI fucking up. Like for example, when driving. One mistake on their part could cost me my life. If I am forced to put my life in the hands of a machine, it better be perfect. If not, let me drive... But in the end, it wasn't so much about the robot themselves, but how the robot interacted. Replace that robot with a human they made the same mistakes, and they probably would have done just as well... Even in the selfish test, it was because of how the robot acted rather than it being an actual robot. Though, they call it concerning how the robot could cause us to act to each other. So, a few bad robots could end up ruining a bunch of people... It even said that, "Children who grow up relating to AI in lieu of people might not acquire 'the equipment for empathic connection.'" They say AI could also negatively affect adults when it comes to sex... It also mentioned how driverless cars could contribute to their atrophy., and could increase a human's likelihood of accidents. Not only that, but it made mention of the three rules. Which don't really seem to matter since there's no guarantee robots will adhere to them. We already have humans who don't. so... Either way, the third article does more harm than good, and proves my point better that we shouldn't have them... And for the second article just showed how you could trick humans into liking a robot. They went to the old lady thinking she was a person instead of a robot. Which is even creepier if they can blend in so well, IMO... And that's before any AI... They also seem to be able to trick humans into not turning them off or to show authority to make them listen to them. Also, there is evidence to suggest that humans experience more negative feelings towards a robot trying to persuade them when it over-expressed common social cues, like facial expressions, head movements, and affective speech. Probably because they feel the robot is trying to trick them with a fake personality... I save that one for last, thinking it would be the only one that showed anything about humans liking robots because of the title. But that one turned out to be a bust, as well... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:23:46 AM #228: |
As for the internet, you mention the library and Starbucks, which are two places that usually have opening and closing times. Meaning that you would have to use it during those times. Which not everybody has much free time. Or free time during those times. Not to mention, there are limits to what you can actually do on the computer. Like it probably wouldn't be acceptable to go in and start watching porn. Plus, with Starbucks, it's still not free since you're have to order a drink to stay inside, or get arrested, apparently... As for the library, it depends on if the library has Wi-fi, or you have to use they're connected computers. And those limit you even more, and have a time limit. If you actually want to use the internet freely without restrictions or time limits, you'll have to pay. Or in Starbuck. Because you have to buy drinks (or be with someone buying drinks) to loiter there... Most places that have free wi-fi give it for customers. Meaning you have to be a paying customer to use it. The laundromat down the street, for example, has "free Wi-Fi"... As long as you're doing laundry. May food places tell you the same. Buy food, and you can sit and use wi-fi. You might be able to get away with it if your friend or family member works there, but that still depends. You also might be able to if you're a regular. But t a regular usually pays for whatever they are getting. And even when you don't, you've probably paid a bunch already... And no. Your lunch isn't free. You friend paid for it. It was literally paid for. It's just that you didn't pay for it. And if you had read my other post, you see I consider free sample as free. But you apparently don't read them, so Idk what to tell you... But no. Your lunch isn't free. It's free for you. But it was paid for. You do understand that, right? Free for one person (or more) doesn't mean it's actually free. It just means that person (or those people) didn't pay for it themselves (themselves)... Which I also mentioned in my other posts (#182)... It literally explains that the food is being paid for because someone paid for it. When I go home and eat food my mom bought, I don't call it free since I didn't buy it. She did, and it cost her money. Same thing for your friend. It's not a free lunch. It's just means you didn't pay for it (but someone did)... As for what you access them with, you still normally had to buy it, though. Like a phone or computer. You don't keep paying for it. But you still had to buy it initially. Which means it's not free. Because if you had internet, but nothing to use it on, you would have to spend money to use the internet. And you call it splitting hairs, but it's still true. You don't pay the phone bill, and it takes away the data for your phone. If you can find wi-fi, you can use it. But not your data or hotspot. Not internet unless connected to wi-fi somewhere, when it normally can reach the internet without it. And it doesn't dodge the point. It's literally the point of this point. The point is that internet is not free... And for a digital book, you could give it away for free... to anybody who had a way to read it. If you don't have a way to read it, then having a digital copy doesn't really matter... And the device you can read it on will usually cost money itself... So, you wouldn't have to pay anything, but they might. Like buying a device they can read it on. Or a device where they can actually see it on (for older people who may have trouble trying to read an e-book on their small phones)... And again, it doesn't reduce the cost to zero. It just means less people have to get paid. But that person who owns the robots who mines the material is still going to expect payment from people wanting the material...
And that one-time cost you mentioned (keep reading for context) is most likely going to be more than a couple hundred dollars. And a decent laptop apparently cost around $800-$1000. Computers have a wide range of prices, but it depends on what's inside. And most smart phones cost over $500 and rising. Many people even put their smart phone on a payment plan, apparently. Some even do that weird renting thing. It's cost a certain amount a month, and you can switch to a newer version when you want to. My brother had it. I just bought mine. So, for phones, it may not actually be a one-time cost. It could be per month, like the phone bill. Well, added to the phone bill... As for youtube, those videos would be on tv. And you could probably just record them like people use to do. Some cable boxes even came with the record function. Of course, those still cost money. How much depended on what you used. You the one making my arguments for me. Nothing you said has pointed to the internet or the other things being free yet... And yes. The world is in a bad place. And Automation makes it worse because money will still be needed. Even if things would be free in the future (which they won't, but hypothetically), the transition period would be horrible. People world still need money, and there would not be nearly enough jobs. So, the world is in a bad place. And automation would make it worse as the people with robots with AI would have a ton more than everybody else... And free material being available is cool if it's actually good. Basically, you're saying sucky free things are available (which most aren't free, anyway). So, pointless shit, then... And if you want to know who they are paying, they are paying whoever owns the material. Just because the robot gets the material doesn't mean the robot owns the material. Whoever owns the robots owns the material. That's who they pay... They don't pay the robot... Not yet, at least... Unless the robot also acts as a cash register, that is... Not everybody is going to be able to just go out and mine materials. Lots of places where people mine stuff is owned by somebody. And if that land is privately owned, that persons normally get paid and compensated for people to get the material or whatever is there. It's not like lumberjacks can just go to their local parks and cut down trees without permission just because they want the wood... Someone owns the rights to the land. Which usually means they own the rights to any materials. And you can even sell the rights of the materials to someone else, like a company who uses the materials. Or a company who mines/collects the material to sell it to others. Which is what happens most of the time. Your robot isn't allowed to just go mine materials from wherever it damn well pleases. That's the whole point. I can't just tell my robot to go mine diamonds from somewhere. Because some company or person likely owns the mines, or the rights to the materials. If not, random people would already be mining there whenever. Rules don't just go away because robots exist... Somebody already owns the rights to those places where the materials come from. They are the ones who you pay to get materials from. Like how we do right now... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:24:08 AM #229: |
And sure, I have access to buy more materials than people in the past. Sure. But things do cost more. The price of cars keeps going up. Especially now, with the shortage. And the average price of Roombas quadrupled since they first came out (from 195.99 - about $800 on average). Even some food places have gone up in price. Shirts, too. I use to find the shirts with designs of whatever for like $10 all the time. Now the same shirts are almost always $20, doubling in price. Not even all of the prices drop because of digitalization. Soe books still cost the same amount, or even more, digital. Games, too. Mant games cost the same if you get physical or digital... Some of the price increases came from inflation. But not all of it. Things get more expensive because the people in charge want more profit. I mean, my cable company didn't want to pay more for some channel they already had, so dropped them. And didn't give people discounts until they started mass complaining. And even then, only gave you the discount for your missing channels if you called. While maybe a few companies care about their product and the customers, most seem to only care about their bottom line... Also, I'm talking about physical material, not content like videos. And again, it's not free. It's "free for us" to use because of the ads. If they couldn't use ads, we'd have to have Youtube red. Basically, the ads companies are paying for us... Also, how many ads you watch depends on the videos. Some crappy creators have made like 15-minute videos with multiple ads reels throughout it. There were other videos talking about it. And the "they" is mostly everybody. Because mostly everybody needs money. To pay for stuff...
And you think making a robot will be easy? Because I don't see it being that easy. You need a lot of parts. Or at the very least, a lot of materials. To make one that can actually do stuff, at least... And it probably won't be cheap. Even that one you showed me cost $25,000. So, the materials probably aren't cheap. Or plentiful to come by. Especially with the shortage. Because even after the shortage is over, it will be a while before it's really over. Pretty much everyone will be playing catch up for a while. Game consoles and cars both need that chip or whatever. Apparently, a bunch of stuff need that chip. I would think robots would need it, too... For humans, I'm pretty sure they will be working even in the more automated future. I think it was a link you provide that posted. Something about human touch not disappearing in fields like healthcare for a while. Which makes sense. And tbh, people would probably be required to keep an eye of the robots themselves. Especially since you never know when an update could cause something to go wrong with all of them. And if something goes wrong with all of them, it's possible the robots you programed to watch the robots would also have something wrong, making it not recognize that something is wrong with the rest. I mean, even phone updates screw people over pretty often. I'm sure an robots updates could face similar problems. It's also possible that people may want a human in certain fields instead of a robot. So, there's also that. Like was stated in some of the links I showed you, not everyone is fond of robots. Some just don't trust them. And people apparently trust them less as more come out. So many people may want a human in certain fields. So, some places will probably keep humans. I don't think humans are going anywhere soon, even if some robots make it on the scene. Either way, that still doesn't get rid of money... Especially since the world will never be fully automated... Now, on to Kodak. While digital is the main reason they failed, it wasn't because they switched to digital. It's because they didn't keep up with it. They had 10 years to prepare for it, and apparently, they squandered it. For example. Spending $500M for the Advantix for it to flopped because it still used film and emphasized print. If they had done digital better, they would have been fine. Digital didn't kill them. Their poor planning did. Advantix would have done much better if it was full digital like the ones today. But Kodak was, " in the photo film, chemical and paper business." So, while you can say that digital was involved in the decline of Kodak, the fail was because they didn't upgrade themselves when digital started to become bigger. And when I say they are still around, I meant the actual product of digital cameras are still around. Hence why I said digital cameras in the sentence. And they are still doing pretty well, last I checked. That might change soon, though. For some people, their phone is enough with phone cameras getting better. But digital cameras still seem to be big enough. I think GoPro count as high end digital cameras. And people still buy those. Phone can only hold so much. So, some people like GoPros for some stuff... And I know what I'm arguing. You say the switch to digital killed them, but that's not completely true. It's because they didn't fully switch to digital. That's what killed them. Do you know what we're talking about. Which is what I've been saying this whole time. As for the context for "This shouldn't even be a question", you have to keep reading. But and after the sentence. The whole thing actually says, "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." If you take out one sentence in the middle without the rest of the post, of course it's not going to make sense. I shouldn't have to explain context clues to an adult. You read more than the sentence to understand the whole thing. Obviously, it was talking about you asking the question, "The reason why you're using what tense?" Which was another question where you didn't understand context. And I noticed that about every post that you ask for context. You always quote one sentence and ask for context. Instead of quoting one sentence, do me a favor and READ THE WHOLE THING. Because context is most likely in the sentence. You just pretend it isn't by not quoting the whole thing... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:25:20 AM #230: |
Anyway, I don't have time to proofread everything. Someone here decides that making tons of (29 in this case) is fine. So, no. I don't have time to proofread everything. I barely have time to proofread everything. I have to write the responses before the topic gets too far (I think there's only like 9 pages for PotD) if I don't want to have to bump it. And I'm only at work for so long. And do other stuff while I'm there like watching a show with my buddy, or paying a game with him. And I'm still not giving up control. I've been driving for over half my life and haven't wound up hurt or dead yet, so I'll probably be fine driving myself. I don't trust the AI, and I think they still have their limits when it comes to addresses. Just like any navigation system. They'll probably end up using those. But again, I don't plan on giving up control of my life to AI. And I trust myself and certain friends/family members more than AI. If neither of us have been hurt or killed, then I don't see a problem. I shouldn't be forced to put my hand in the life of a machine (or hacker). So, I won't. Also, AI can have faults. They aren't perfect like you apparently think so. And only a tyrannical government would drive regular safe driving, which many humans can do. Many can't drive drunk, hence why it's illegal. Because the way alcohol affects the body. And driving without a seatbelt is bad because it's safety issue. But there have been many people, and will continue to be many people that have driven for decades without so much as a fender bender. Taking away driving to put our lives in the hands of a machine is ridiculous... People should be able to choose. Just like people can choose to eat healthy, or eat junk food. Or people can choose to work a safe or dangerous job. People should also be able to choose whether they drive, or someone drives for them. If they want to drive, then let them... And people who understand science will probably also fight. Just because someone doesn't mind self-driving cars doesn't mean they only want self-driving cars. Or want the ability to drive themselves taken away. You act like everybody who likes science will love self-driving cars just because. But that's not true. Some people still want the ability to drive themselves wherever, whenever. Just liking science doesn't mean you want you driving privileges taken away. Especially when you've done nothing to warrant this...
Commerce may not care about feelings, but some people (so some customers) do care about feelings... That's the point. There are people who go to certain food places where it's basically home-cooked meals because the food feels made with love. And many people still make stuff for their families. Just because you have no heart doesn't mean other people feel the same. Not everyone cares about love, but not everybody just buys whatever, either. And in the end, that doesn't go against the point. The point is that while they probably weren't correct in everything they said, they were correct when they said, "Machines can't replace the heart and soul of a human worker." Because they literally can't... And just because you don't like my personal anecdote doesn't make it less true. The fact is, not every trucking company is going to want to switch to self-driving vehicles. And you don't need a personal anecdote to tell you that. Just like how I don't trust them, many other people don't. And that's according to the article I posted before. And some people don't want to fire truckers that have worked for them for years if they don't have to. Many people are fine with their own drivers and still make good money. Not everyone is going to fire people just because they could get a self-driving vehicle. They still run a good business. They just want a good business filled with people instead of cold, heartless machines... The $60,000 was for the self-driving trucks that the whole paragraph was talking about. Again, context clues were there. You just didn't read them, I guess. But from what I heard, regular trucks cost about $125,000. And self-driving trucks cost that, plus extra for each level of autonomy they are given. Plus $5,000 for a fully-automatic or automated mechanical transmission. Which apparently is needed for self-driving... You say that anybody who enacts the AI or Robot ban will fall behind, but you also have no proof of that. For example, if a restaurant does that, many people will probably still eat there if they like the food. Not to mention, with the amount of people who don't like or trust Ai/Robots, those places could end up with more business... They only have to adapt if people stop going there because they want robots. But according to those polls, people don't trust them. And trust drops as more comes out, apparently... So, it depends on what the people want. Because it could be that the places that adopt AI and robots lose customers instead... And the slow progress of Self-checkout proves my point. Because as wide-spread as they are, they aren't in every major business. After 30 full years. And these are business that could afford them, but don't even have one. This proves my point that technology is moving much slower than you think... And just because you can raise the speed limits with self-driving cars doesn't mean they will. But people would just probably rather drive themselves. Instead of having to wait for a car to come pick them up... You say numbers will rapidly drop on people disliking self-driving cars, but probably not. Like the article said, many won't even get into them. And not owning a cell phone is different. Even in the example you give. You say they wouldn't own one because it was for rich people. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't want one. It means they didn't think they'd be able to get one. In the case of self-driving cars, it looks like people wouldn't want to even ride in one, let alone own one. So, I don't think it'll change quickly. And there will be even more pushback if they try to make it mandatory... Not only that, but I even showed an article that said people are getting less trusting as more comes out. According to the articles, you're saying exactly the opposite of what it happening... According to the research, as more come out, people will be even less trusting of automation... And while you may not put too much stock into the phrase, "Not ready for Primetime", the article does. People could mean many different things. But it all basically means that people aren't ready for self-driving cars. And you call them ordinary people who know nothing about AI. And they may be ordinary people who don't know much about AI (though I sure many know at least a little), but those are the customers. The ones you have to convince to use the stuff... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:25:24 AM #231: |
As for the False Consensus Effect, the articles I used are what proved the things I was saying. Which means I wasn't using the False Consensus Effect. You can cry about me using the "No U" response all you want. But if it's true, then who cares. Because unlike you, I wasn't using the FCE. I was using literally articles. The first time you mentioned it (FCE), it was when I said most people wouldn't like to own self-driving cars. And the articles showed that. It showed most people not trusting them or wanting to ride in them. And if they won't even ride in them, then they most likely wouldn't buy it. Some probably still would. But most wouldn't... The False Consensus Effect is "a pervasive cognitive bias that causes people to 'see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing circumstances'. In other words, they assume that their personal qualities, characteristics, beliefs, and actions are relatively widespread through the general population. Meaning I'm still correct about saying that not what I used since I wasn't basing it off of my own behavioral choices, but off of the choices of people who were part of the polling they did... As for that post, it wasn't the only one I was responding to. You kept saying that I was saying many people or most people in a bunch of my posts. So, I just found some articles to show you I wasn't pulling stuff out of my ass like you were. But I explained in other posts later why people wouldn't like not owning them. Like being able to keep their stuff in it, and not having to wait for them. Having the convenience of being able to go wherever whenever is usually what people like...
As for enjoyment, we kind of were talking about it at one point. I said many people like driving and would want to continue doing it without having self-driving cars do it for them. Like how I mentioned people loved driving in post #157. So, I was definitely talking about that. I just also got an article to show you I wasn't making stuff up since I said, "Many people love driving"... And it was "enjoys it a moderate amount". Shows enjoyment rather than dislike, which also had 2 options like liking it did... So my sources still prove my point. It only "scuppers" my point if you can't read... And based on my point (and the fact that I shared the articles), I actually have looked up my point, contrary to what you want to believe. You can say I didn't look up my stuff, but then how did I get you all those links. Meaning, you're wrong when you said, "Largely because with most of your points you clearly haven't." since all of my points had those sweet links to actually back them up... And yes. People would definitely riot over not being able to drive their cars. Like I showed in the link, most people seem to enjoy driving, according to the poll. So, people wouldn't like having that pleasure taken away from them... And the reason people don't fight over not being able to use a horses and buggy is because you can actually still use them. Maybe you should start looking up your information before spreading misinformation. They are apparently allowed on roadways. They just aren't common as common anymore... And saying, "we don't permit unsafe activities when a safer alternative becomes viable" is a bold faced lie. They let people eat what they want when there are safer alternatives. They let people go unvaccinated, when that could harm others. They let people do all kind of unsafe activities because people want to. If that's your reasoning for thinking they'll make that law, then I'm fine because that will never pass. People already do unsafe things and the world lets them. And I can still bike wherever instead of sitting at home. But based on your stats, I'll be dead before they pass the law, anyway... So I guess it's whatever. As long as I don't have to live in a dystopian future with a tyrannical government, I'll be fine... For Zipcar, I use the word apparently because I personally haven't use them. But I haven't heard many good things about them. You can look it up yourself. Idk what you mean by "Trumpian". Sounds like you just don't like facts. Pretty much every Reddit article about Zipcar is bad. I heard it's only good if you use it like once a month or something. And a review article said, "people who will use Zipcar rentals more than twice per week (more than about 30 hours per month), the model will cost more than owning a car or using ride-sharing." Basically, it was better at first, then took a turn for the worse. That said, I can't say it was good or successful. Just better than it is now. So, no real concession or anything. I heard it use to be better years ago, but has fallen into a bunch of bad habits, lately. Even if you don't like Reddit, those are real people talking about real experiences. So, you can believe it's good if you want... And while I know Uber and Lyft use self-driving, that's not why they switched. They just switched because Zipcar sucked. Though, just because some Uber and Lyfts use self-driving, it doesn't mean all of them do. And most only switched used them because they didn't have cars. That said, a few people did say that after their horrible experience with Zipcar, they got a car. But that's was the minority (of the comments I read)... But between a shitty company like Zipcar, or getting a ride from a person driving Uber or Lyft, I can understand why they would choose the latter. When you have two bad choices, you still gotta choose one. So, you go with the less shitty option... And the metric I'm basing on the customer reviews on Reddit. Both are really shitty, though... I've seen Vivint's shittyness firsthand. The things I've heard about Zipcar is almost all bad. I have heard ok things about Vivint when you aren't trying to get rid of them. Though Vivint also did something with other's people's credit. Both are shitty, though... The car subscription could be cheaper. It also might not be. It really depends on how much you use it. Like the article said, it's gets too expensive if you use it a lot. In that case, ride sharing or car ownership might be cheaper. Especially since after owning a car, you only pay for gas and upkeep. Gas can be cheap depending on type of car and gas price. Upkeep can be more expensive, but that's normally if something goes wrong. So, it could be no money spent on upkeep for a while. With Zipcar, I believe you only get a certain amount of gas paid. They also fuck up times and where the car is a lot. So, it's also much less convenient. And you could end up spending way more over the year that a car payment. Plus, a car payment will eventually end. But the subscription keeps going. So, it could be cheaper, but it might not be... So, the point you raised a couple of weeks ago is still as pointless as it was then... And I said they are having trouble affording them. I never said they couldn't, though. So, don't put words in my mouth. I've had trouble affording stuff before. I changed something around and got what I needed. Maybe they are fine with how things are right now. But maybe decide a change is needed once self-driving cars come in the mix... And 11 years ago was still after the great recession ended. And it's still means more people are starting to buy cars. And I know you hate personal anecdotes because they always go against you, but maybe read it before discounting it. I was saying that it matched the polls from the articles I told you about. But I understand that you have a hard time facing things when you're wrong. And another thing you were wrong about was, ", it means absolutely nothing in the context of what's being discussed." But I'm sure you know that since you've been wrong a lot in out discussion... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:26:28 AM #232: |
You assume self-driving car will be cheaper, but there's no basis for that. Even when talking about self-driving trucks, it a regular truck that has more software. And it's like couple thousand dollars every time they want to move up an autonomy level. Meaning that trying to buy a self-driving car would be expensive. And it would be expensive for a company to have a lot of them. And if it's that expensive for a company to get them (and probably cost a pretty penny to maintain them), then it might not be cheap to ride in them, as well... All of those things as much less convenient than having a car, but still work well... And before you say something weird like "Why would you pay a self-driving car?" You wouldn't. You'd pay whoever owns it. For example, if you got a self-driving car from Uber, you would pay Uber... because that's just how things work... So, how expensive it is depends on how often you use it and the price. Buying a car could be much cheaper if you get a used car. Even new. Getting a car mean payments, but eventually those payments stop normally after a few years. Using self-driving Uber for 15 years can end up costing a lot more. Same with Zipcar. Because you never stop paying. Even just driving somewhere close cost you something...
When you leave your keys in the ignition, you get a soft beeping. And that's in certain positions. To the point where I have close my door with them in because I couldn't hear it. Or because it didn't make a sound. Not really an alarm. And not everywhere is full of cameras... Or working ones, at least. There are more than before. But I know many of my neighbors. And lots of them, for example, don't have any cameras. In certain housing areas, people sometimes have cameras. But sometimes, they don't. While there are some house owners around where I live, many rent. And so many of them couldn't get camera's installed because of that... Which is why Vivint was scouring the neighborhood some weeks ago. And you can tell teens not to fuck in the car, but they still will. Many use to do it because they couldn't at the their homes. Take away cars they can drive themselves, and they'll just fuck in a self-driving car. Possibly while moving. Teens sometimes do whatever they want... The problem is you'd basically have to send it in for cleaning after every ride. You never know what somebody else has. But they probably won't because that would actually be overwhelming if everybody had to use them... But I still agree with what I said earlier which is, "Basically, this idea is a dumb one with way too many flaws." And it's successful to a degree. But people aren't forced to use them. And all the cars have a human that can actually clean and spray as needed. It changes once there are no drivers. And literally everybody in the world needs one. The business model works now, but can easily change when it becomes way too much to handle. But it depends on if it actually gets to the point where people can't drive... That's assuming It knows who the person is. People could easily make an account not using their real name. Like if someone if paranoid about giving out their name. Or if someone called someone else an Uber to pay for them. Maybe they don't get a good look at the person's face (mask, neck gaiter, balaclava, etc) while someone else called the Uber for them... any number of things... And even if they find the person, you might only get compensation for the phone. Which kind of sucks, as well... So, it might not be that easy to track down. And so far, I've only heard about level 4 autonomous services with Uber. Which means with a driver still... I found this article that says it's seems to have stalled for the past 2 years (written Nov 2020)... They themselves said level 5 was way off. So, they wanted level 5 "robo-taxis", but who knows when that'll be, if it ever happens... They were promised for 2020, and now they are a long way off... Or maybe it won't happen... Who knows? Here's the article, if you want to see it: https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a34728777/is-uber-giving-up-on-level-5-robo-taxis/ And the article above makes everything honestly sound like a nightmare. Like it'll be pricey for the company, and will be hard to make money or whatever. And Uber might be stuck with human drivers for while... According to the article, that is... So, there's that... And as I explained above, it's not that's I'm not worried about the baby life. But I believe that 1.) the car will remind you of a passenger. And 2.) If you were already planning on taking the kid to daycare, the car would automatically go there. Says more about you when you try to twist what I'm saying. It that's you've been doing this whole time. Just makes you look bad, though... And you said yourself said the whole full driverless thing wouldn't happen for decades, as well. And Uber themselves say it far off. They said by 2020, and it's already changed. And it's apparently getting further away... And switching to the Uber model has more cars on the road. There are already people who don't drive, so they use Uber. If you take away everybody else's ability to drive, you'll have tons of people on the road at once. Not to mention you would need extras for people needing rides. And to be used when others are dirty. And even before they stop regular drivers, you'd have them on the road, as well... That said, that's pretty far off because even Uber realizes that's too expensive. Even level 4 is apparently too expensive for certain areas... The reason that things change from parking lot you use to a garage or driveway is more than one things. But one difference is payment. Most people don't worrying about paying on their own property. Some place have a payment. But when it's your own driveway or garage, you'll usually good. Also, it's not you property when you also have eyes on it all the time. Some people also leave stuff in their car for work, but they can also get it if they need it at home. There are many differences, which is why is doesn't work for the "scenario" I put forth. It's literally not the same as someone parking their car in a garage or driveway... I mean, it should be pretty self-explanatory... And you may not be completely right about that most people needed a garage or driveway. Really depends on the area. Many places have it where people can park on the side of the road. A driveway or garage is better. But it they don't want or need it, they could just get rid of it. I think people like having them if they have cars, though... Especially garages, since you can warm up your car with the garage door half open. But the car itself isn't as cold as it would have been if it was outside. Same for the heat, as well... But I also gave the option of shortening it. Which could also work. You'd still have a driveway, but it wouldn't take up as much space... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:26:31 AM #233: |
And you say, "Not if renting is cheaper." But that depends on if renting is cheaper. From what I hear, that's not the reality for Zipcar. And we don't know what Uber would do since they put that stuff on hold, apparently... But with how expensive level 5 Autonomy is, it probably wouldn't be cheap. And how often you would do it plays a factor, as well... if it's something you do a lot, it might be cheaper to own... And for owning, you only pay Until it's all paid for. Where for renting, you will always pay every time you use it. Which isn't the same for owning. Once you finish paying, you don't have to pay to just use it. You do have to fill it with gas. But that's not every time you use it... Though how often you fill it with gas does depend on how far you drive it each time you drive... For the transit station, I do agree it would be better if both you were close to the transit stop/station, and the transit stop/station was closer to your destination. But I don't think the route has to be that direct. As long as you can get there, it should be fine. I know trains can get confusing when you have to change like three times to get to your destination. But buses usually have a route they follow... So, it could take a little while if your stop is the last on that route (Especially if you rode a different bus to the station first, and you were one of the first stops). Transit isn't that inefficient for everyone. There are tons of stops that people sometimes miss or don't pay attention to until they need them. Even for me, they're like 3 or 4 in walking distance. And while I had seen them, I never paid much attention until I started working at the station. It was pretty eye opening. After working there, I noticed the stop, buses, and van more often. The stops cover the town pretty well, though... And some places aren't easy for the a self-driving car to reach. Like the navigation gets confused going to my BF's house. Or on country roads. And I believe self-driving cars would also use navigation to get places, which could cause problems going to his house, or my co-workers house, as my navigation says I'm there before I pull in his driveway. Technically, I don't even reach his driveway before navigation says it's done... Though, his as least takes me to where I need to go...
And actually, if there were more buses, traffic wouldn't be as standstill-ish. Well, if more people rode buses. They showed a video once of how you could have a full rode of people in cars, but it was normally one or two people per car. But if all those people were in buses, it actually clear up the road. You can normally fit 40-ish people on a bus depending on the actual size of the bus. If half of the bus riders on a full bus were originally driving cars, that means you potentially got 20 cars off the road. If they happened with more car drivers, you could have much clearer roads. More buses would mean less traffic... If it's not available for regular use, or still in testing phases and stuff like that, it's still future tech. It's as simple as that. Hence why I call it future tech. Just existing doesn't make it present tech if it's still doesn't work properly. But I definitely grasp basic English knowledge better than you, so that's a plus... And again, the Sawyer bot really looks like it can't do much. It seems to only be able to pick up small objects, and maybe vacuum. How would you teach it to do anything. The video I saw made it seem like it couldn't even learn to pick up bolts if it was bumped. It just looked sad and stopped. Doesn't really look like it could learn anything. A learning bot would have felt the bump, and made its own corrections instead of just making a sad face... So, what can it actually learn to do. I'm going to assume nothing if you give me that lie about whatever you want to teach it. Because I still haven't even seen its capacity to learn even one thing yet... If the video had showed the guy bumping the table once and it made a sad face, then bumping it again, but it was fine, I would be like, "Oh. It learned something!" That's what I was expecting it to do. But that didn't happen. If they wanted to show what it could do, they should have showed it learning that function. At this point, it's looks fairly useless. And they haven't even shown it had the capacity to learn anything other than saying it could. And depends on the space travel, it could be considered future tech. Like light speed travel and such... And again, in the "No U!" fits, I'll use it. And usually seems to fit. Maybe you're just projecting a lot... Who knows... And you buy roombas from the store. Or online. Retailers sell them. Some stores you can buy them include, iRobot, Best Buy, and even Bed, Bath, and Beyond. All of these places and more sell Roombas. So, you would buy it from those retailers. That should be pretty obvious... Just because automation made them doesn't mean they be given to the stores for free. And if the store had to pay for them, the person buying it has to pay the store. It's literally how business works. Like it's been this way for a while... Is this why your business failed? You don't seem to understand how stores work... And again, anything with ads isn't free. Youtube isn't free. It's free for us. Just like how the lunch your friend paid for isn't free. It's free for you, but they still paid for it... And I'm not adding the physical qualifying. Earlier, I was talking about automation making stuff (with materials). And mentioned that things should already be free if all it took was automation making it. They you went to name a bunch of stuff people made, and not even the physical stuff (like stuff made in automated factories)... The physical qualifying wasn't an add on. Here's what I originally said: "In the end, the materials aren't just free because a robot harvested them. If that was true, the person who gets the materials wouldn't do it because he has need to get them. You're the disingenuous one if you really think things will be free for no reason. If that were true, many things would already be free. We have automated factory lines for many things already. And they cost money." That was the whole paragraph. It was post #147, the last part of the first paragraph. You only quotes the italicized part. And I know you have trouble with them, but the bolded parts are the context clues. Using those, it should be clear I was talking about physical things made in automated factories being free. So, no. I didn't just add the physical modifier. That what I was look for from the beginning. You just went on this tangent about a bunch of other stuff... So, there's not goalpost moving unless you're doing it. If you would read the whole paragraph together instead of bits and pieces, maybe you would have understood what I was asking for from the beginning... I think I see you're problem and where you fail to understand business. Just because you have robots who work for you doesn't mean you'll sell items at a lower price. You based your price on how much the items cost. The things is, just because somebody used robots instead of humans doesn't mean they'll sell you the items cheaper. Because you already bought them at a certain price. So, you'd probably by them at that price again. They just end up making a bigger profit. So, just because you automated doesn't make your prices cheaper since you prices are normally determine by the original price you paid from the manufacturer. And that price may not change because they automate. Because that just gives them a bigger profit... I don't see why you don't understand that... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:27:32 AM #234: |
But if getting back to the how everything isn't free, we can sum it all up. The free stuff you're getting is either paid for you by the ad companies (the friend buys lunch example), or by companies selling something for you (you information who they sell to whoever wants it, not just Microsoft like you assume). So, they are getting paid by another company to allow you to use something like an email address. It's pretty simple. Free for you doesn't mean it's actually free. Just means someone else paid. And even then, some places offer premium version of stuff that you also have to pay for... Like porn, youtube (red), and certain podcast apps... a bunch of stuff, really... And the internet still cost money like I said earlier... And for the pictures, if some paid for them and then put them up for others to use, that would be the equivalent of going to a party that the host got a caterer for. They paid for a bunch of food, and everybody partook. Again, free for you. But not free since someone paid... So, no free pictures either... And again, free for you doesn't mean free. Just because someone paid for you food doesn't mean the food itself is free. You just aren't the one paying. But the food still cost money... So, it's not actually free. That's like saying NetFlix is free since you use somebody else's account. That would be wrong. NetFlix still cost money. You just aren't paying for it... For stories, again, it depends. I think many sites have ads. But I would need to know the sites. Or you could have a book account with Kindle or whatever. Or you are buying physical books for money... So, no. I'm not admitting you right. I have no idea if any are really free. I personally haven't seen them. But not a much like you claim. And I can tell you the scholastic book fair definitely wasn't free... And some books are stolen since people other than the author will sometimes put a story up... And yes. It would need to be all of it. You can't say game are free if only 2 out of 5 million were... And for video games, I still see no proof against what I said. Though, maybe you forgot what I said. So, whatever... But if you want to know, I said, "Video games are rarely free." And you tried to say that wasn't true by showing a bunch of free games on steam. And the end result was that still didn't go against what I said... And those fermium game on mobile go with the ads stuff. The ads are paying for you... And any micro transactions some people make... And like I said earlier, video conferencing does have paid versions, which I didn't know about. But in the end, none of this matter as none of this had anything to do with what I was originally talking about... So, it was a waste...
And things should get cheaper over time, but not everything doesn't Some things stay at the same price, even when companies find cheaper way to make the stuff. Because they want profit. And some things do get more expensive. Like roombas. Which has gone up in price. They were only $199.95 when they were first invented. And now, all of them seem to cost more. And I asked the question twice for emphases. Not because forgot I asked it. I'll say stuff twice because you seem to miss stuff all the time... Like all the context in my post. End result is it's not free, and had nothing to do with what I was talking about... And I still don't know why you thought I meant plates. Why would some "grow plates". Especially when, if you knew how to use context clues, you would have seen me also mention meat and cheese and seeds (for the plant)... Context clues, though... If something doesn't make sense (like growing plates), then maybe it was a typo. And it clearly was. And clearly showed what it should have been... And people make typos. Especially when I have to write hundreds of replies. And you just keep adding more. So, typos will happens. When I have shorter posts, I can usually spot them. But not with pages of post. Not only that, but if the typo is a real word, it won't even show up with red or blue underlines. Meaning I won't even know there is a mistake... For hunting, some people may teach you for free if you can find them. If you can't classes cost money. So do the actual weapons and ammo. Which cost money. And like I said, if everyone was out doing it, there would a lot less. Not to mention the laws surrounding the amount and time you can kill them. And the fact that you will only find certain animals. You most likely won't find cows and chickens just running around. It's makes more sense to just go to the store and buy it. And there's still learning how to actually butcher it and stuff... And then, some people just suck at it. Or have a hard time actually killing the animal... Hence why some people are glad the farmers and butchers can do it for them... Something you forgot is that the robots the farmer buys has a cost, too. They need to make that money back first before anything is really profit. So, they need to make that back first. Also, by automated their work force, you know what that means right? More profit. So, here's my question. Why would they automate their whole work force and lower food prices so that their profit margin stays the same. The answer is, they wouldn't. That's bad business. The reason to automate is to help gain a better profit. So, they would automate their work force, and sell food at the same price to make a bigger profit. Because that's how businesses work... They can only undercut so much before automating everything was just a big waste of money, as they still need a higher profit than before... Plus, they may not actually need to undercut. You have places like In-N-Out which kinky order from a certain place. They are looking for the cheapest place. They're finding a place they trust. Which certain business will do. Like if they only buy local or something... And no, the bills still don't go away unless the farmer owns them. Animal feed will still cost money since it's bought from the store. Even if you have a robot vet, you still need to buy the medicine. Or the materials to make the medicine. Even with a robot butcher, you need to buy a butchering set for it to use. I heard those could be expensive. And that also means buying those robots to do that stuff... So, no. Robots don't make everything free. They make humans lazy, and they just mean certain humans can make more money while screwing the rest of people over, and without lifting a finger... The main problem is I think you don't think people will own or rent the robots or something. Many people will own and rent them. And if they do, anything the robots make, find, mine, or whatever belongs to whoever owns or is renting them. So, things still cost money because it's not like the robots own it. Whoever owns them owns it. And they will sell for a profit. Also, again, you might not be able to just send your robots out the get materials for free. If what you need is in a mine, for example, you need permission to mine there. And most of the time, a company either owns the mine, or the rights to anything mined from there... So, even without a farmer overseeing the robots, somebody owns the land and the robots. That person will be the one making money. They are just going to give stuff away for free. That's why someone is always making money. Doesn't matter if nobody is overseeing them (though somebody will always be because you have to make sure the robots are still working well), because whoever owns the robot is now the one making money. Maybe it's be the government or state if not the farmer... But someone always owns something. And you can't assume that they will give their property away for free... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:27:37 AM #235: |
I watched a short tutorial on Go, so I know how it works. I just don't remember everything since I don't play it. But I know not everyone has to play the same exact way. And just like any game, you can play defensively, passively, aggressively, etc.... People play differently, and the robot can predict millions of moves per second. And can use predictive movements to figure out what they think the person will do. Especially if they've played against them multiple times. Or against someone who played similarly. Even without playing a game, if it knows how to play, it can probably still predict movements based on how they are starting to play. I haven't lost at all. You still haven't given a valid reason on why they can't predict people movements other than "It's a lot", and that's not a valid reason since computers can process a lot of information... Here's even a site that talks about different style. It's also got some humor in it. But it still shows how people can play differently. And how some certain styles have certain moves that can show you certain playstyles. Even if you don't read it, it mentioned how some people could build up their own territory, or go to invade someone else's. Those two are different ways of playing, meaning there are different styles of playing... And if a computer can figure out they style, it can help with predictive movement. Even our residential PotD Go player told me how there are different styles. Some of the ones he named were Aggressive, Influence, Territorial, and defensively...
As for the video games, based on the other AIs that wrote stories and YouTube videos, I just see them smooshing things together to make a video game, because that's exactly how they made those videos. And even after making the YouTube videos, I think for one, they used humans to tweak it so it worked... Where human developers usually try to make something new of different. Or add new flavor to something old... And I'm just tell you what I've seen. I've seen random smooshing with stories and videos, so that how I see them making video games, as well... And I know you have trouble with English and typos (must be hard to be on the internet for you), but the sentence says, "I don't think the ones letting the AI help will be "hobbyist." I know it must be hard to not understand that with was will. The internet must not make a lot of sense to you. I've seen so many typos on this site. And you seem to be the only one who can't read them. Most people usually understand what others are trying to say. And it's not a fact that AI will keep getting better yet since that's in the future. You can make predictions and assumptions, but that's about it. You claim I'm making hypothesizing, but so are you... Real people can evolve, too. Not to mentioned, this pushing us closer to extinction. Like The Great Filter and all. But it people like robot apocalypses and tyrannical governments that control everything you do, I guess go for it. I like being free, and seeing what humans can do, mistakes and all... Like I said, I'm all up for tech to help, but not to replace. What's to say they won't just get rid of humans since we'd be worthless to them? It you can program them to do anything, or teach them anything, you can also program or teach them to kill, as well. And if they evolve, they may realize that they don't like humans... Even with the three rules (three laws of robotics), they may not care to listen to them anymore... Who knows... I mean, you are saying that we'll basically be treating them like slaves, so... And the reason I mention that about the stuff is because it's still needs more testing. Until that testing is done and they are available easily for many people (and in more than one form and out of the early stages where they can't do anything), I can't understand how you would say it's out already... And it you don't have feelings, that's fine. But many people find feelings in songs, art, and so many others things. But maybe that's why you like the robots, too. Maybe you're as emotionless as they are... The "This stuff" I mentioned is literally everything we've been talking about since you came into the topic.. At least, the stuff you said would happen soon. And I never said you had a uniform timeline. I said you said soon for many things. Like for example, things you say are already out and stuff... And you are definitely twisting my words. Literally in this slew of post, you tried to twist my words to say I didn't care about babies, when I explained why I wasn't worried that parents would leave them in the car. Or that I cared about phones more than babies. Or when you cut out half my post to pretend I agreed with you, when there's more to it to show I clearly don't... And with friends, the problem is I wouldn't meet them outside of work. Some of the best friends I have here, I met at work. But none of them would have been my friend outside of work. None of us really hang out at the same places. And even if we did, we probably wouldn't have become friends. Like one of my closest friends here, I normally wouldn't have talked to him. The only reason I did was he was on my shift and playing his switch while I was. Because of that, we started realizing we had a lot of interest in the same games. That's when we became friends. We watch shows and play games together all the time now. We even share a desk when we are at work together. Had we never brought our switches to work, we may never even have talked... Or the guy at my last job. In most situations, I probably wouldn't have talked to him. We don't seem to have that much in common. But when working together, we grew to know the other person well, and we would hang out all the time. But most of the people I know don't usually hang out in the same areas I do. Meaning most of my close friends wouldn't have been friends without work bringing us together. Or school, in the case of my friends back home... So, no bam, and no problem solved... And my social skills are great. Better than most people. I social butterfly in most cases. And the linchpin of my group of friends back home. But I just most likely wouldn't meet people I like or want to hang out with. I make friends easily wherever I go. But they aren't always friends I want to be around a lot. And my friends aren't going to ditch me (unless they move, which is very possible). The problem would be trying to make more good friends if I stopped working... And the reason I say they are mimics is because you were talking about robots mimicking them. You said, "Which AI is capable of mimicking flawlessly." But I don't want the knock-offs. I want the real band. I was talking about how certain bands still sound like themselves, even when sound engineers change stuff. Or how they can sing a song written by someone else, but still sound like themselves. But I don't want a robot copying the other bands... And I never said I couldn't tell the AI-produced music from the real thing. Sounds like another lie that you made up. I did say I didn't want to listen to them, though. I can tell what my favorite bands sound like for sure. Many people can. And can tell a fakes (even a good one) apart from them. So, I don't need you luck as I can already do that... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:28:33 AM #236: |
As for the "interpretation" you're confused about, we about to talk about it... Why you don't know confuses me, though. Since A, B, and C all deal with it, but whatever...
A.) If you live somewhere where you won't get business, then maybe the business isn't a good idea. If I lived in the middle of nowhere and wanted to start a business, I have to either move, or possibly rent out a place where I can get more customers. You right that most people aren't thinking to maximized their profits. But that's not really good business sense, either... B.) I guess. When my mom started any of her businesses, it wasn't a main thing, either. But she did set out to make sure it was thriving. It helped to live more comfortably, even though we were living pretty comfortable already... Though, not rich or anything... C.) Normally it is, though. With a business, you normally offer a product or service for money. Therefore, a major part of business is money. Especially since I think most business ideas have already been thought of and are available. You could also offer a closer version of whatever it is (like if someone opened a closer barbershop). But even then, they are usually trying to make money... My mom was a business owner, though. And even she agrees that the main point of a business is to make money. So, even a business owner disagrees. So, I don't think it has anything to do with being a business owner... I never said better equipment would definitely improve your business, because I don't know what your business is. So I did not make any wild assumptions. I based my assumptions on what you told me, though. And I've already explained why I made each assumption... And my mom taught me well enough. Probably better than you. At least her businesses were thriving and never bare minimum profits... And no, I'm still not constraining anything. Here are some things I said: - "While self-checkouts may not be plentiful in the junkyard, many cars are. So, it still doesn't really work. I can actually go to a junkyard and and probably find cars parts for used stuff. I could probably build a car with junkyard parts. But I probably couldn't make a self-checkout machine."(Post #139 fifth paragraph) That's me saying how I could build a car from junkyard parts, but not a self-checkout. - "Maybe some people could make one. But I don't think all the parts are all there. So, I still doubt it. Like advanced scanners and such."(Post #148 first paragraph) That's me saying how I don't think all the parts to make on are in the junkyard. So, no. I'm not adding constraints. I was always talking about building one from junkyard parts... That's was my whole point when talking about the junkyard specifically. Because I was talking about get cheap fixes financially. I never mentioned a car catalogue, so the electronics catalogue never mattered... So, again, you're just mad that you "lost the debate". No extra constraints needed. You just thought you could bring in electronics catalogue when the discussion of that paragraph was always about building a junkyard self-checkout. I know you can build on from parts from catalogues. So, that obviously wasn't what I was talking about... As for the scenario, it could easily happen. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise... It's literally something that can happen. That's just a fact... Unless you think self-driving cars are perfect and can dodge literally everything... And you can nitpick all you want, but I'm obviously talking about self-driving cars. It's literally what that whole paragraph is about. My post is easy enough to understand, though, as you were able to answer it. Surprising since you've had so much trouble with context clues in the past... Either way, I disagree. I think self-driving that you won't be able to avoid getting in one is at least a decade or two away. Especially since most people will probably keep the cars they already own. For convenience sake. Plus, they already own it in many cases... And I never said I was worried about babies lives or anything. I think they'll be fine because they are passengers. I said, "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." Which also means you'd end up at the daycare before work as long as you programed it right... But nice trying to twist my words. But again, try harder. Or just be a decent person and stop taking what I say out of context. But whatever... But I do think humans should be able to drive themselves. If it was as big of a problem as you say, they we wouldn't be able to drive now. I think it was about 0.7% of all car accidents at fatal. It's still a big amount of people, but only because they are so many accidents. We don't even know if the number of accidents will go down for self-driving cars because of the ability to hack them. It may get worse, for all we know... Which is why I'm talking about solving problems before they happen... Though, if they taught drivers how to be safer, maybe the accidents would go down. Either way, I still don't and won't trust them... And will drive my own self (with the exceptions of other human drivers I trust) until the day I die... And sorry. The actual sentence was, "So, how am I scuttling my own argument?" Because I actually brought proof and have even countered all your points. You just don't like the answers I've shown... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:28:37 AM #237: |
And again, because it hasn't happened yet, nobody can literally know if it'll be worse that with humans. Or that they will definitely be safer or more predictable. We can only know that after hey come out... You can say they will be better all you want. We still don't have any proof that they actually will be better... or if it'll be better at avoiding anything... As I said earlier, we don't what will happen when there are a bunch on the road. Mayhem could break loose as soon as too many, or even just a lot, are on the road... Hackers could have a field day and cause all kinds of stuff to happen. And we can't know how it'll be until they are all on the road with the regular human drivers. Like I said earlier, an actual article said that experts warned that self-driving cars were "particularly susceptible" to hacking. And their view can still be obstructed in more than one place at the same time. Meaning they still might not see the car that caused the chain reaction. So, if the cars that were in the accident were in the far left lane and didn't the car in the far right lane that caused the chain reaction, they it becomes hard to actually pin the accident on them. If they were multiple lanes over with cars between them, then the cars in the accident might not see the person that caused the chain reaction. And since witnesses don't have to wait at the scene of an accident, they may not ever catch the other person... And since the one that start the chain reaction wasn't in an accident, it probably won't stop. All it knows is it almost had an accident and avoided it... And I would hope it avoids it, but I don't think self-driving cars are, which you seem to think based on something you said a little earlier... But, as stated above, the robots don't have to be perfect with some stuff. Stuff they can do over, which I listed earlier. A car accident isn't one of those things, though. So, for driving, it has to be perfect.. And it can't be that perfect, which is a reason I don't trust them and wouldn't get into one... Because I don't want to be the person who dies because of self-driving vehicles. You can say how low the chances are, but my driving also hasn't gotten me killed, so there's no different to me except I have no control over my own life anymore. Which is why I'm not getting in one. I rather take as much control of my own life as I can...
And I can't prove it until I find the topic. I just know that's what brought our conversation on. You said that, and I said how I worked at bus station that didn't have them. You said we'd be getting them soon. Within a couple of years. You want to be a petty liar and pretend you didn't say it, go ahead. I can't stop you. I'll just know you'll lie to get yourself out of a corner. And trust me, my memory is much better than yours. You can't even seem to remember your own post from a week or two ago in this very topic. So, it' definitely better. And you complain about me "misrepresented things" when that's literally what you've been doing this whole time. Like taking my quotes out of context and shit. Like about every time you post. I'd trust my memory over a person who can't even remember their own posts from a week ago. As for the government, they're the ones who make the law. They can easily find the loopholes. You're making this way too easy... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
JigsawTDC 05/29/21 3:53:23 AM #238: |
oh my god please just let this thread end
... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 3:57:03 AM #239: |
JigsawTDC posted...
oh my god please just let this thread end It will end one day... When is that day, I don't know. But if replies, then so will I... --- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/29/21 10:44:49 AM #240: |
I don't TL;DR often, but holy walls of text Batman.
--- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
GEKGanon 05/29/21 10:48:05 AM #241: |
The thing about automation is that it has to hit an equilibrium at some point. Companies automate because it saves money to not have workers, but if nobody works, nobody gets paid, and if nobody gets paid, nobody has money to spend, which means corporations would have nobody to buy their products. There will be a point where automation starts costing corporations more than it saves them, because they'll kill their revenue by leaving people without money.
--- Steam Name: gekganon ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
SaltyAndSweet 05/29/21 10:50:13 AM #242: |
GEKGanon posted...
The thing about automation is that it has to hit an equilibrium at some point. Companies automate because it saves money to not have workers, but if nobody works, nobody gets paid, and if nobody gets paid, nobody has money to spend, which means corporations would have nobody to buy their products. There will be a point where automation starts costing corporations more than it saves them, because they'll kill their revenue by leaving people without money. Solution: Universal Basic Income --- Hey its me ur Mead ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
GEKGanon 05/29/21 10:51:35 AM #243: |
SaltyAndSweet posted...
Solution: Universal Basic Income You'd either have to have UBI, or businesses would have to intentionally refuse to automate work that could otherwise be automated. --- Steam Name: gekganon ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/29/21 10:51:40 AM #244: |
SaltyAndSweet posted...
Solution: Universal Basic Income Or just abolish money entirely and let a global resource distribution AI distribute goods and services as required. GEKGanon posted... You'd either have to have UBI, or businesses would have to intentionally refuse to automate work that could otherwise be automated. The problem with the latter solution is that businesses generally are not going to sacrifice their own productivity for the sake of the general economy. Automating everything reduces the amount of money in circulation, but it also gives owners of individual businesses more money, so they generally aren't going to care and will instead hope that everyone else makes the necessary sacrifices to keep the economy running while they reap all of the benefits. So... capitalism as usual. Basically, unless some sort of regulation is put in place to force companies to not automate a certain percentage of their workload (which is hardly ideal), the system won't self-correct. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
SaltyAndSweet 05/29/21 10:55:28 AM #245: |
adjl posted...
Or just abolish money entirely and let a global resource distribution AI distribute goods and services as required. I cant buy drugs with that --- Hey its me ur Mead ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/29/21 10:56:36 AM #246: |
SaltyAndSweet posted...
I cant buy drugs with that You can, however, go get some drugs from the drug dispensing robot, provided you aren't asking for more than is available. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
GEKGanon 05/29/21 10:58:56 AM #247: |
adjl posted...
Or just abolish money entirely and let a global resource distribution AI distribute goods and services as required. The system would self-correct when nobody has money to buy their products, their revenue craters into oblivion, and they subsequently go out of business. --- Steam Name: gekganon ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
SaltyAndSweet 05/29/21 11:00:05 AM #248: |
adjl posted...
You can, however, go get some drugs from the drug dispensing robot, provided you aren't asking for more than is available. I gotta start following that robot on twitter --- Hey its me ur Mead ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
adjl 05/29/21 11:03:28 AM #249: |
GEKGanon posted...
The system would self-correct when nobody has money to buy their products, their revenue craters into oblivion, and they subsequently go out of business. But individual businesses won't be able to stop that. They aren't going to be able to say "our revenue is tanking, better start paying some people so people can buy our stuff," because that's just going to cost them even more money and not offset the loss in revenue. The system won't correct itself so much as it will collapse on itself. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 05/29/21 2:56:39 PM #250: |
Another problem is the time between and now and the time between when a lot of things would automate. If they decide to automate a lot of stuff, maybe will be jobless. And its not like you go to sleep one night with barely anything automated, and wake up the next morning with almost everything automated. It could take a couple decades. And thats a couple decades and more and more people losing their jobs, but everything by still costing money. And thats money that only some have... And if UBI isnt enough for people live on (which seems like it wouldnt be based on the test that I was shown in another topic), then that wont help as much, either...
--- Official King of Kings Switch FC: 7216-4417-4511 Add Me because I'll probably add you. I'm probably the LinkPizza you'll see around. ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| Topic List |