| Topic List | |
|---|---|
|
darkknight109 06/02/21 5:32:58 AM #251: |
LinkPizza posted...
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.Except that's not the case or I wouldn't be calling you out on it. If your posts are poorly constructed, don't expect me to do your work for you. LinkPizza posted... And my context clues aren't ambiguous to the point of worthlessness.They 100% are, dude. LinkPizza posted... 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."Something about"? Meaning you don't know. Here, allow me to educate you on the subject: recipes are not copywritable. Period. This is not debatable at all. From here: https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf "Recipes A recipe is a statement of the ingredients and procedure required for making a dish of food. A mere listing of ingredients or contents, or a simple set of directions, is uncopyrightable. As a result, the Office cannot register recipes consisting of a set of ingredients and a process for preparing a dish. In contrast, a recipe that creatively explains or depicts how or why to perform a particular activity may be copyrightable. A registration for a recipe may cover the written description or explanation of a process that appears in the work, as well as any photographs or illustrations that are owned by the applicant. However, the registration will not cover the list of ingredients that appear in each recipe, the underlying process for making the dish, or the resulting dish itself. The registration will also not cover the activities described in the work that are procedures, processes, or methods of operation, which are not subject to copyright protection. Examples: Jules Kinder submits an application to register a cookbook, Pie in the Sky. In the Author Created field of the application, Kinder asserts a claim in text, photographs, and compilation of ingredients. Each recipe contains a list of ingredients, instructions for making a pie, and a photograph of the finished product. The claim in a compilation of ingredients will not be accepted because there is no copyrightable authorship in a mere listing of ingredients. Since this claim is not acceptable, the Office may communicate with Jules Kinder to limit the extent of the registration to the text and photographs only. Paulina Neumann submits an application to register a recipe for caesar salad dressing. In the Author Created field, Neumann asserts a claim in text. The work consists of a list of eleven ingredients with the following instructions: (1) puree anchovies, garlic, Dijon, egg yolks; (2) drizzle oil in gradually to emulsify; (3) add lemon, parmesan cheese, salt, pepper, Worcestershire and tabasco sauce. The Office will refuse registration for this work, because the list of ingredients is uncopyrightable, and the instructional text contains an insufficient amount of creative authorship." Emphasis mine. In essence, while you could copyright a cookbook or how a recipe is presented, the recipe itself is not subject to copyright and anyone can use it without permission or paying royalties. LinkPizza posted... And the problem I see is that robots will be able to steal those recipes.You can't have something "stolen" from you if it doesn't belong to you in the first place. Again, recipes are not copywritable. If they were, you wouldn't be able to cook a hamburger for yourself unless you paid McDonalds for the right to do so. LinkPizza posted... 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.You wouldn't. As a result, restaurants would have to change their business model, as most businesses facing changing technology do. Expect to see them shift to more of a lounge-style get together area rather than somewhere whose main selling point is food. LinkPizza posted... So, I 100% expect industry reps to step in.And do what? They have no legal power and any lobbying they do will be opposed by the (much larger and more well-equipped) big tech lobby. Moreover, you can't outlaw an idea. The robots are merely working off of publicly available information. There is no meaningful way to ban that technological process, nor would anyone outside the food industry want to. LinkPizza posted... 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...Yet you already conceded that the robots are fully capable of working out the dish on their own, whether or not the chef wants to cooperate. If you're a chef and you have the option between selling your recipe to an interested robot manufacturer for potentially millions of dollars or simply letting them work it out on their own and eventually wind up with nothing, you'd be an idiot not to take the former. --- 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 06/02/21 5:34:05 AM #252: |
LinkPizza posted...Not everyone has to. All it takes is one person to "hack" their robot and work out the food information and they can claim to have made up the recipe themselves and sell it to the cookbot manufacturers. Again, recipes aren't copywritable. There's nothing illegal about this and no meaningful way it could be made illegal. LinkPizza posted...Having worked in the food industry when I was a student, I think you vastly overestimate the attachment 90% of restaurant employees have to their job or their industry. Yeah, the restaurant owner might be ready to march in the street; his line chefs that he pays $9.00 an hour to won't be particularly driven to join him. LinkPizza posted...This is a hilariously bad take. You cannot ban an idea. AI cannot straight-up stop people from cooking their own food. LinkPizza posted...There are currently 12.5 million restaurant employees in the United States. Given that that includes non-cooking staff such as managers and wait-staff, as well as those who work at fast-food places essentially following proscribed steps to prepare a pre-cooked meal rather than actually making restaurant-quality food, I'd charitably say that maybe a tenth of those employees are "restaurant-quality" cooks. Not even good cooks like a robot would be, just decent enough to make a living off of it. Even assuming that those cooks were evenly spread throughout the country, that is still less than 1% of homes in the US. LinkPizza posted...Yes, we 100% do and yes, we will. Seriously, please keep your objections somewhere in the vicinity of rationality, I'm getting very tired of disproving your strange dystopian fantasies... LinkPizza posted...You're saying that a future where you are able to get restaurant quality food, in your house, any time you want, for a price far, far lower than you would get at a business... is bad? Do you seriously not understand what you're suggesting here? LinkPizza posted..."You guess"? So, again, you don't know. Which means the AI is already good enough to fool you and people like you. Art experts may criticize, as art experts are wont to do, but the AI will be providing goods that are good enough for the overwhelming majority of the population and are and will be getting better all the 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 06/02/21 5:34:58 AM #253: |
LinkPizza posted...Oh, good, you're conceding that robots will eventually be perfect at these things. Thank you for conceding that robots will be able to make better art, food, and video games than humans could and for tacitly admitting via this logic that AI will be superior to humans in many different fields. I will be sure to come back to this point later. LinkPizza posted...If I predict that global warming is a serious threat to the global ecology and will cause significant devastation, ecological damage, and societal unrest if left unchecked, while you argue that global warming is the result of aliens from Mars pointing their rayguns at us and they'll stop in a couple years, both of those are predictions about the unknown, but only one of them is based on rational analysis. My posts on AI are based on actual knowledge of the technology, as my job as an engineer involves using machine-learning programs on a fairly regular basis and I have an interest in AI advancements above and beyond my job requirements. Your posts are very clearly based on a lack of knowledge and what you think is logical based on a poor understanding of the technology in question. LinkPizza posted...Wrong. You either completely misremembered my posts or are trying to deliberately misconstrue them. At no point did I say that AI can (present tense) do everything; they very clearly cannot. One day, however? They will be able to replace humans in 90+% of the jobs we do now. And, honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if that day comes in my lifetime. Future tech seems incredibly futuristic until you're actually holding it in your hands (how many people in 2005 would have guessed that within five years time, an Apple-manufactured cell phone would take over the planet?). And AI are already involved in far more fields than most people appreciate. Lawyers, doctors, engineers, artists, newspapers, computer programmers, movie studios, and law enforcement, to name just a few significant industries, are all increasingly incorporating robots and AI into their work, and the more tasks AI take over, the faster they will start to replace humans. LinkPizza posted...They don't need to - I've explained this to you several times already. They just need to say whether they liked it better or worse than the last time the robot cooked it. That will tell the robot whether the changes they made moved it closer to or farther from their goal. LinkPizza posted..."Probably", meaning you don't know. Machine learning doesn't work that way. You don't have to dictate to a robot what ingredients you want increased or lessened; if it worked that way, that's not machine learning, that's just you operating a blind cooking-machine. LinkPizza posted...You already admitted that a robot, given enough time, can perfect a dish. You're arguing against yourself at this point. LinkPizza posted...More proof that you don't know how machine learning actually works. --- 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 06/02/21 5:35:53 AM #254: |
LinkPizza posted...*sigh* No, you don't. Seriously, if you're going to argue this topic, at least do yourself a favour and learn the basics of how machine learning works. It's painfully apparent you are completely clueless on the subject. Here's your first lesson. Machine learning is an iterative process. When a machine is trying to perfect its ability to complete a task, it takes the most successful way it has previously determined to do the task (in this case, cook a recipe) and changes some parameter about how it cooks the dish. Maybe it alters the cooking time or temperature, maybe it changes the ingredients. It will then evaluate the outcome of the task - in this case, by presenting you with the finished dish and asking if you liked it better than last time. If you say no, then it determines that the changes it made from its previous attempt moved it further away from the goal and it goes back to the original way it made it and iterates a different way. Maybe this time it adds or removes some spices. And maybe this time you say, "Yes, this was better than last time." Now the AI has a new "most successful" way it made the dish and, on future attempts, it will iterate off that recipe rather than the old one. This is machine learning 101. If you do not understand the process of how machines learn, your continued participation in this discussion is pointless because you're going on at considerable length about things you have no knowledge of. LinkPizza posted...Yes. And? LinkPizza posted...If the choice is "keep restaurants" or "destroy restaurants, but everyone gets cheap, restaurant quality food made right in their kitchen anytime they want", then bye-bye restaurants. Sometimes businesses die thanks to new technology. It's sad, but inevitable. The electric light bulb killed the lamp-lighter industry, the refrigerator killed the milk-delivery business, and the printing press did away with the scribe profession. Restaurants may one day join those industries in the dust-bin of history. LinkPizza posted...If you are only now learning about white-hat hackers (or think that Google is the only one using them to test security and that them doing so is in any way novel), you are decades behind on your technological knowledge. White hats have been a thing for almost 50 years now and are regularly employed by security-sensitive sectors (including, yes, banks). LinkPizza posted...Probably, but by the same token you can set up a security-AI to catch hacker-bots and they will likely be much better funded to do so. LinkPizza posted...That is pretty close to "all technology" by definition. Technology in general exists to make work easier, which means people need to spend fewer hours and less effort doing it. That translates to less jobs overall. There's a reason why we've gone from 90+% of the species being involved in gathering/cultivating food to less than 10% of the population doing so today. LinkPizza posted...Again, parts of this are literally my job. Honestly, none of what I'm telling you is all that esoteric in terms of machine-learning knowledge; you just don't seem to have any real backing on the subject. --- 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 06/02/21 5:36:50 AM #255: |
LinkPizza posted...Yes, you're getting your information from "articles" instead of actual understanding of the principles at play - I picked up on that a few replies ago. Are you familiar with the DunningKruger effect? LinkPizza posted...No, I'm acting like you're the only one making predictions that aren't based on actual fact or realistic assumptions. Again, you literally posted a few paragraphs up from this quote that we'll be banned from cooking our own food - that's the level of realism I'm stuck dealing with from you. As I mentioned, there's a difference between someone predicting that global warming will cause serious effects on our species and someone who predicts that global warming will stop when the martians turn off their rayguns. Both of those are predictions, but they're not equally valid predictions. LinkPizza posted...Then you believe wrong. LinkPizza posted...Like industries have been doing since the 70s? LinkPizza posted...That's something hackers already can get... by hacking your phone. Or your employer's computer system. Or the government. Even entertaining the hypothetical that your personal chef-bot would have reason to know the above information, that info is already out there and there are considerably more efficient ways for hackers to access it (hackers don't care about you personally, they want as large a trove of info for as many different users as they can get; your personal AI is not nearly as tempting a target as, say, a phone company that has the names, addresses, and credit card numbers of millions of their customers). LinkPizza posted...You postulated this hypothetical when talking about a cooking robot being hacked. Why would your chef-bot know your SSN? As usual, you're blaming me for your own poorly-constructed arguments. It's not my fault if your arguments lack context. LinkPizza posted...See, this is an example of properly quoting the text you were responding to. Congratulations, you did it! Anyways, you're correct that people will pay the cost when they think the cost is worth it... but the reverse is also true. People will put up with lesser service if they think the discount is worth it. Case in point, Wal-Mart sells largely cheap garbage - there are higher-quality goods made under more ethical conditions available at pretty much any other store. Yet people still shop there because it's cheap. If you told someone, "Hey, we can give you a 20% discount on your shopping, but you'll have to wait in line an extra few minutes", a significant portion of the population would happily make that trade, especially those living near (or under) the poverty line. --- 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 06/02/21 5:37:43 AM #256: |
LinkPizza posted..."Probably", meaning you don't remember. For all the bragging you're doing about your amazing memory, it doesn't speak highly of you that you can't even remember what device you used to type up a post that's only a few days old. LinkPizza posted...You're "pretty sure" I only mentioned it once? Then you don't remember either, or else you would be sure. And, as above, your accusation of me being unable to remember my post is all kinds of hilarious considering you can't even remember what device you wrote your posts on, nevermind their content. Regardless, you simply threw out the "Company A" statement and it was not clear from your post that that sentence was a response to something I had said earlier. This is what I mean when I said you need to provide context. You're making both arguments and responses in your posts and it's often not clear which is which (and, when you are responding to something, what it is you're responding to). This is why I'm saying you don't actually understand context; if you did, you'd understand why your supposed "context clues" are actually ambiguous nonsense. LinkPizza posted...I explained, at length, why they're wrong. That is the definition of debunked. LinkPizza posted...Who doesn't? 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've explained this to you already and at this point I can only imagine that you're deliberately trying to stick your head in the ground to avoid acknowledging that you're wrong. These stores currently still require at least some human employees to do tasks like stock the shelves and take inventory. Yet those jobs are not things that can be done full time; as such, rather than inefficiently either hire someone to only come in for a couple hours a day (something few are willing to do, as it doesn't pay a decent enough wage for such short hours to be worth it) or have their staff standing around idle, they have them man tills in order to increase speed of payment and customer satisfaction. LinkPizza posted...The fuck? Do you seriously not understand how machines and depreciation work? Machines don't need to "rest" - that's part of the benefit of having them replace humans in the first place. That is you projecting human needs onto an inhuman object. Whether a machine runs constantly or not at all has surprisingly little effect on its lifespan in an industrial setting, nor on their projected lifespan. You want to replace machinery when it's economical to do so, especially in a world with fast-evolving tech. LinkPizza posted...Your suggestion is that a company triple their up-front costs and triple their losses from depreciation, all so that the machines can get their beauty sleep? That's adorable. It's not how the real world works, though. You buy the number of machines you need, you run them until their life cycle ends, then you buy the newer, better machines once the replacement window comes up. Tripling your costs means that, at best, you're simply paying more to saddle yourself with old technology for longer. It's less cost-effective and it uses up valuable business real estate, which is why no one does it. --- 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 06/02/21 5:38:49 AM #257: |
LinkPizza posted...The fact that they're not should tell you something about the quality of this particular idea of yours. LinkPizza posted...Apparently you don't if your posts are any indication. LinkPizza posted...Which you conveniently almost never post. LinkPizza posted...Largely because most of the things that I'm posting are pretty basic knowledge that I wouldn't think needed sources, but if you want them for anything I post, ask and ye shall receive. LinkPizza posted...Which is an anecdote. You're telling a story of asking other people and relaying their answers. That is not a verified fact, that is your personal retelling of a story that has no bearing on what is being talked about. LinkPizza posted...If I tell you that I asked people around me a question and relay their answers, that is a personal anecdote, for reasons I already explained several times. LinkPizza posted...It is 100% unverifiable. If you want me to believe you actually did this, get all the people you asked to post here, verify that they know you in real life, explain what the question was you asked them and give their own answers. If you can't or won't do that, you cannot verify that you actually asked anyone this question, nor that you are relaying their answers accurately. I have no way to know that you're not just lying through your teeth on this or that you didn't ask the question in a leading way to provoke the answer you wanted. --- 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 06/02/21 5:39:43 AM #258: |
LinkPizza posted...Correct, they *are* immaterial to any post. Thank you for admitting this. LinkPizza posted...As I already explained, even if you did actually ask them all this question (which you cannot prove) and they did provide the answer that they don't think this will happen (which you also cannot prove) that has absolutely no bearing on whether any of them are right. That is why it's immaterial. At best, it is their opinions, which - given that none of them are experts in this field, nor participating in this argument - amounts to nothing of any import. You are once again falling for the False Consensus effect, even after I had previously pointed it out to you. LinkPizza posted...Hey, look, another personal anecdote, this one just as unimportant as the last. LinkPizza posted...Completely remove humans from what? The price of what needs to remain the same? 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...Of course, but profit is revenue minus expenses (something you should have learned if you're as business-savvy as you later claim from apparently absorbing business skills from your mother via osmosis). If revenue drops (from, for instance, a price drop), you can still increase your profits on a per-unit basis if expenses drop more (like, for instance, if you automate your work force). Which is to say nothing from the expected increase in profits from more units sold if you reduce the price of said units. LinkPizza posted...Says who? In most countries, subsurface land is owned by the government and is sold to mining interests as needed. If a robot mining program took off, it need only be on government-owned land, which would remove the need for a private owner to pay off. LinkPizza posted...Of course it will. Money is a representation of human labour. Not robot labour, human labour. I will explain this to you as many times as it takes for it to stick. --- 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 06/02/21 5:40:26 AM #259: |
LinkPizza posted...In which case, I won't use your robot, I'll use my robot. Problem solved, no need to pay you. LinkPizza posted...The False Consensus effect light is blinking again. Also those "different forms of media" you reference are all fiction. You understand that, right? Terminator is a story created for entertainment, not a documentary on the fate of the human race. LinkPizza posted...No, the problem is that the safety net will need to be strengthened to prepare for a world where humans are still involved but there's not enough jobs for everyone to work. That's not an impossible premise, but it will require creative thinking and significant political will and direction, something that is sorely lacking at the moment. LinkPizza posted...Whether they "want" to lose power has nothing to do with whether or not they will. I'm pretty sure Kodak, one of the wealthiest companies in the world, didn't "want" to go bankrupt because of improvements in technology, but it happened anyways. LinkPizza posted...Which they won't, because robots will be making our goods and providing our services. LinkPizza posted...Again, they do it now. I've already posted a lengthy list of things you can get online completely for free. That is literally someone giving away their products for free. LinkPizza posted...This is "No, u!" number seven, by my count. Do you seriously not have any response to criticism that isn't "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 06/02/21 5:41:22 AM #260: |
LinkPizza posted...Sure. And the development of AI and machine learning constitutes a fairly substantive change in this context. Never before has a technology emerged that threatens to make humans obsolete en masse. We've created plenty of machines in the past that have rendered human physical labour obsolete, but never one that makes human mental labour and decision-making capacity obsolete, yet that's exactly what AI does. LinkPizza posted...Of those, only real estate is something that could not be produced by an entirely automated workforce with no human interaction. LinkPizza posted...Given your wildly reactionist viewpoints in this topic, I'm guessing you would have. LinkPizza posted...Cool. You're not in an informal setting, you're presenting an argument. Words have meanings. Get used to it. LinkPizza posted...But it's not, so it isn't. LinkPizza posted...What seems to be "an obviously typo"? 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...Saying what without proof? 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 06/02/21 5:42:10 AM #261: |
LinkPizza posted...You literally (note: actual literally, not whatever nonsense definition you're using for the word) said: "Thinking everything will be free just because is pretty bad reasoning. And literally everyone knows it. Except for some people on this site like you..." LinkPizza posted...The fact you need to look all these things up says a lot more about your lack of familiarity with the subject material than anything I'm doing. LinkPizza posted...Which one? I have listed several. This is what I mean about your vaunted "context clues" being vague to the point of uselessness. You think you're specifying what you're talking about, but with statements that only make sense inside your own head. LinkPizza posted...Then literally all you had to say is, "I was talking about physical things, like cars and roombas." See? That's context that actually helps the conversation instead of your random statements. LinkPizza posted...Here is a Roomba, for sale, on the official site, for $230. https://www.irobot.com/roomba/600-series Please stop lying. It is simply embarrassing having to correct these obvious errors in your posts. If you actually looked things up half as much as you claim, you wouldn't make these mistakes. LinkPizza posted..."Probably." Meaning you don't actually know. Please cite your source showing that the Roomba factory is more automated now than it was in 2002. LinkPizza posted...Robots can take whatever form you want. If you want your food cooked by an anthropomorphic chameleon, there's no reason a robot couldn't take that shape. Part of what is being done to make robots more marketable is to understand what forms humans are and aren't comfortable with. --- 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 06/02/21 5:43:08 AM #262: |
LinkPizza posted...One mistake on a human driver's part could cost you your life and you put your life in tens of thousands' of their hands every time you go out for a drive. Difference is, the robot is far, far less likely to make a mistake than the human driver is. LinkPizza posted...You are aware that this is a complete non-sequitur, right? Asimov's three laws are a work of fiction, not something that was ever based on reality. I have no idea why you thought this was even relevant to bring up. LinkPizza posted...So... what? Finish your sentences, please. LinkPizza posted...But we already do. Stop trying to think of this in terms of, "We shouldn't have technology that already exists." Never once in the history of civilization has anyone succeeded in banning a technology, because technology, at its core, is just an idea and you can't ban ideas. This is precisely why roboticists are working to understand the pitfalls of automation and AI so that they can better tailor the end-product to be as helpful as possible for humanity, something you already said you support. LinkPizza posted...https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowUserReviews-g181716-d4107456-r187624217- Starbucks-Richmond_British_Columbia.html https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowUserReviews-g60878-d4997432-r334836513- Starbucks-Seattle_Washington.html LinkPizza posted...So sit outside. Wifi doesn't stop at the door. LinkPizza posted...Which you would be doing anyways if you're going there... so yay, free Wifi! --- 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 06/02/21 5:43:56 AM #263: |
LinkPizza posted...Meaning it's free, at least from your perspective. If you disagree with this, then literally nothing free has ever existed in the history of humanity outside of robbery, because someone always paid for something somewhere along the way. Which is, y'know, a completely ridiculous way to look at it and not something any normal person would think. If a restaurant gave you a free meal, you could use this logic to say, "Nuh-uh, it's not free! The restaurant paid for the ingredients and the cook to make it! It's not free because somebody paid for it!" Which, again, is absolute nonsense. LinkPizza posted...So if your friend pays for it, it's not free, but if a company pays for it, it is free? That's really stupid and logically inconsistent. LinkPizza posted...Except you consider free samples free, which - by your own logic - shouldn't be considered free because you needed to pay for clothes in order to be allowed inside the business without getting arrested. You've literally reduced yourself to arguing against the English language. Seriously, take the loss and move on from this point. LinkPizza posted...What doesn't dodge the point? 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...That's like saying someone giving away pamphlets isn't giving them away for free, since you needed to pay in order to learn how to read as a child. Please, stop this utterly nonsensical argument, you're just embarrassing yourself now. LinkPizza posted...Did you pay money when you signed up for GameFAQs? No? Then it's free. Deal with it. LinkPizza posted...Which is precisely the point of this whole side tangent, so thank you for acknowledging I'm right. Less people being paid means less payment required. You could have an entire archive's worth of literary material, an entire music store's worth of songs, and more video than you could ever watch, all for the cost of an internet connection. You could not do that in years gone by. You were attempting to argue - incorrectly - that digitization and automation had not made anything cheaper when they objectively have. More stuff is available - for free - now than at any other point in human history, and that's all thanks to technology. You can keep stuffing your head in the ground to try to deny it, but you know that it's true, because you are literally posting on one of those free products in order to carry on this argument. AI and full automation simply takes this trend to its logical conclusion by reducing all remaining costs to zero via the removal of humans from the process. --- 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 06/02/21 5:44:47 AM #264: |
LinkPizza posted...Oh, look, here's a laptop on the first site I looked at for less than half that cost: https://www.bestbuy.ca/en-ca/product/asus-l510-15-6-laptop-star-black-intel-celeron-n4020-64gb-emmc-4gb-ram-windows-10-s/15312409 And here's one for less than a quarter: https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/ASUS-11-6-Chromebook-C202-Intel-Celeron-N3060-4GB-RAM-16GB-eMMC-Chrome-OS-Refurbished-90-Day-Warranty/PRD1L2GBKNZ0DZX Again, please stop telling easily disprovable lies. LinkPizza posted...Google Pixel costs $350. https://store.google.com/product/pixel_4a?dclid=CPq29si29_ACFYeU7Aod-RwNIQ&hl=en-GB The Moto G Power costs just $190. https://tinyurl.com/3s4pthe6 Hell, the TCL 10 5G UW is a 5G phone that costs just $400. Do you really think I'm not going to notice when you keep trying to lie your way out of these points? LinkPizza posted...What videos would be on TV? 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..."Probably". Meaning you don't actually know. LinkPizza posted...Except it won't, as I've already shown. You can have a far nicer life with far less money now than at any other point in our species' existence. The amount of "stuff" - from educational content to entertainment to how-to videos - available to you for free on the internet is staggering. Refuse to acknowledge it all you want, but you know that I'm right. LinkPizza posted..."No, U!" count up to eight now. LinkPizza posted...It absolutely has the potential to be, yes. That's why this transition has to be very carefully managed. Congratulations on catching up to the thing I posted a few hundred posts ago. --- 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 06/02/21 5:45:30 AM #265: |
LinkPizza posted...I mean, you're using it right now, so that doesn't speak very highly of how you spend your time if you consider it "pointless shit". LinkPizza posted...And if no one owns the robots? Independent or publicly-owned robots are not out of the question for a fully automated world. LinkPizza posted...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain LinkPizza posted...That "somebody" is the government, meaning they can make those resources publicly available or mine them with their own fleet of robots and distribute it to the populace. --- 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 06/02/21 5:45:56 AM #266: |
LinkPizza posted...
But things do cost more.Indexed to inflation? No, they don't. LinkPizza posted... The price of cars keeps going up. Especially now, with the shortage.Cars also last longer and have more functions. Also, you can literally get a used car for a few hundred bucks if you don't mind one with a lot of miles on it. LinkPizza posted... And the average price of Roombas quadrupled since they first came out (from 195.99 - about $800 on average).As posted above, the basic price of a Roomba has remained roughly the same. Indexed to inflation, it's actually cheaper now than when it first came out. The more expensive versions are the ones that have more functionality or options. Which, y'know, makes sense. LinkPizza posted... Even some food places have gone up in price."Some food places" does not mean that food overall is more expensive, especially when indexed to inflation. LinkPizza posted... 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.Then go to cheaper shirt places. Side note: If you are buying shirts for $10 - now or back then - you are paying for sweatshop labour. LinkPizza posted... Games, too. Mant games cost the same if you get physical or digital...I have no idea what "mant games" are, besides more evidence you can't write very well, but the average game is cheaper now than it ever has been. One need only spend a few minutes perusing Steam or gog.com or any of the console online stores and noting the myriad of games for sale for less than $10 to see the effects. True, Triple-A games are more expensive now than they used to be. But Triple-A games now take tens of thousands of people several years to produce, where thirty years ago all but the biggest game development teams would fit in one room and could pump out a game in a few months. You're not comparing apples to apples because the quality of the product has increased, something you're (likely deliberately) failing to account for. You can get cheaper products or better products, but it's difficult to get both. LinkPizza posted... I mean, my cable company didn't want to pay more for some channel they already had, so dropped them.Your personal anecdotes are not statistically significant. Dunno how many more times you need to be told that. --- 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 06/02/21 5:46:31 AM #267: |
LinkPizza posted...
Also, I'm talking about physical material, not content like videos.And why are you only talking about physical material? Most of our world today is digital. LinkPizza posted... And again, it's not free. It's "free for us" to use because of the ads.Exactly - in other words, "free". You don't have to pay for it, it is being provided for you free of charge. Took you a while, but thank you for admitting I'm right. LinkPizza posted... If they couldn't use ads, we'd have to have Youtube red.And even if you did, you'd still be getting more material for less money than any time in history. LinkPizza posted... And the "they" is mostly everybody.What "they" is mostly everybody? 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... And you think making a robot will be easy? Because I don't see it being that easy."You don't see it" meaning you don't know. LinkPizza posted... And it probably won't be cheap."Probably" meaning you don't know. You don't seem to know about most of the stuff you're talking about. Which, given what you're saying, isn't all that surprising. LinkPizza posted... Even that one you showed me cost $25,000.Sure, because it's early days for that technology. Early tech is always expensive. The earliest computers were the size of a room and cost so much that only large companies and academic institutions could afford them. Today, you can get a computer with more computing power than those early computers for pennies as a child's toy. --- 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 06/02/21 5:47:02 AM #268: |
LinkPizza posted...
Pretty much everyone will be playing catch up for a while.Probably. That said, this shortage will be decades in the rearview mirror before most of the world is automated. LinkPizza posted... I would think robots would need it, too..."You would think" meaning you don't know. LinkPizza posted... For humans, I'm pretty sure they will be working even in the more automated future.Depends - "more automated" or "fully automated"? The former yes, the latter no, and that's sort of a "Uh, yeah, no shit shirlock" statement, given that whether or not humans are working is right there in the name. LinkPizza posted... 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.That sort of a cascading failure in a properly designed system is roughly on par with worrying about a planet-destroying meteor hitting Earth. LinkPizza posted... Like was stated in some of the links I showed you, not everyone is fond of robots.Not everyone is fond of computers either - doesn't mean that computers aren't presently ubiquitous and virtually required to participate in modern society. LinkPizza posted... 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.Which is a distinction without a difference. Again, you claimed that no company would ever push out a tech that would bankrupt it... except Kodak did just that, something you are tacitly admitting with this statement. LinkPizza posted... Digital didn't kill them. Their poor planning did.Their poor planning regarding digital. In other words yes, digital did kill them because it cut off their traditional business model and they failed to put together a new one in time to save the company. --- 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 06/02/21 5:47:33 AM #269: |
LinkPizza posted... Hence why I said digital cameras in the sentence.Hence why you said digital cameras in what sentence? 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... And they are still doing pretty well, last I checked.Then you apparently didn't check very recently, because they've been through corporate bankruptcy and are now a shell of their former self. Is this that vaunted business acumen you're claiming your mother taught you? Because it's looking like she didn't do a very good job if you think what happened to Kodak is a success... LinkPizza posted... Do you know what we're talking about.Your terrible punctuation (missing question mark on this sentence, for instance), frequent switching of topics, and lack of context to your statements does make it difficult, I freely admit. LinkPizza posted... But and after the sentence.See what I mean? How the fuck am I supposed to try and make sense of this? LinkPizza posted... Obviously, it was talking about you asking the question, "The reason why you're using what tense?"Then all you had to do is post that. The fact that you didn't do that makes your post unclear. Don't expect me to stop calling out poor post construction if this is what you think decent writing looks like. LinkPizza posted... Anyway, I don't have time to proofread everything.You could just avoid making obvious errors in the first place, but apparently that's expecting too much of you. Speaking of... LinkPizza posted... Someone here decides that making tons of (29 in this case) is fine.Missing subject in the sentence. Poor grammar and punctuation overall. Needs work. See me after class. --- 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 06/02/21 5:48:04 AM #270: |
LinkPizza posted... 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.Doesn't sound like much of a job to me if that's how you spend your time. You sure you want to be criticizing my work when you're freely admitting that you're basically goofing off on company time? LinkPizza posted... And I trust myself and certain friends/family members more than AI.Sure, because you don't understand how statistics work. I get it. LinkPizza posted... Also, AI can have faults.True, just not as many or as egregious as humans. I've never said AI were perfect - that was your argument - I just said they're better than we are. And that is unarguably true. Basic statistics says so. LinkPizza posted... I shouldn't be forced to put my hand in the life of a machine (or hacker).You already do on a daily basis, because AI is all around you, whether or not you see it. Hell, all the planes in the sky above you are flying half-automated already. LinkPizza posted... And only a tyrannical government would drive regular safe driving, which many humans can do.Another nonsensical sentence. Were you maybe imbibing of something a little harder than coffee at work while you were writing this post? LinkPizza posted... And driving without a seatbelt is bad because it's safety issue.99% of the time if you drive without a seatbelt, you will arrive at your destination with no ill effects; we've still banned it because it's unsafe. 99% of the time if you drive with a decent human driver, you will arrive at your destination with no ill effects; when self-driving cars eventually become common, this will eventually be viewed the same way as driving without a seatbelt. LinkPizza posted... 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 don't have the right to drive without a seatbelt. Or drive drunk. Or ignore PPE requirements on hazardous jobsites. We do mandate safety and we will eventually mandate self-driving cars for the exact same reasons. --- 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 06/02/21 5:48:39 AM #271: |
LinkPizza posted... Just liking science doesn't mean you want you driving privileges taken away.Sure - I mean, some science-loving individuals still drive drunk. Doesn't mean drunk driving is a good idea or that those people aren't wrong for doing it. LinkPizza posted... 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."Who is "they"? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted... 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.While charming, warm-fuzzies are no substitute for commerce. Yes, people may love your home-cooking business; when you're up against a robot who can make the same food for free, it's still very unlikely it will be a viable business model. Everybody says they prefer "Mom 'n Pop" stores over big-box giants like Wal-Mart that treat their employees like shit and employ questionable labour practices... but those big box stores still dominate the market, while their Mom 'n Pop competitors fight over table scraps because those unethical business practices make them money and at the end of the day, people are more likely to go with whatever is lightest on their wallet rather than their conscience. The world probably shouldn't be that way, but it is and it's pointless trying to deny that. LinkPizza posted... And just because you don't like my personal anecdote doesn't make it less true.Whether it's true or not is immaterial; it's not statistically significant because it's just one person's (biased) experience in a single region. It has no bearing on the argument at all. LinkPizza posted... 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.Again, warm-fuzzies don't make up for commerce. My employer had to layoff some of my fellow employees last year during the pandemic. We didn't want to and we didn't do it because we didn't like them; we did it because our business was drying up thanks to pandemic conditions, we were being undercut by competitors, and we weren't bringing in enough work to keep them on staff. With the pandemic crunching everyone's budgets, our usual clients were seeking the cheapest possible options, which frequently wasn't us. And, yes, many of our competitors were making better use of machine learning and AI than we were and were concordantly able to produce similar work with lower budgets, which was a case I made to our management several times (thankfully, they are now investing more in machine learning tech to help make us competitive again). If you are a trucking company with human drivers, you simply won't be competitive with self-driving trucks. Maybe some people will continue to hire you out of nostalgia or a lack of need to watch their bottom line, but you'll be rapidly pushed to the fringes of the business while your automated competitors eat your lunch. LinkPizza posted... You say that anybody who enacts the AI or Robot ban will fall behind, but you also have no proof of that.You cannot prove a hypothetical. Try again. That said, there is evidence supporting that which is literally every society that has ever tried to impede its own technological progress. LinkPizza posted... For example, if a restaurant does that, many people will probably still eat there if they like the food.To quote your own argument back at you, "You have no proof of that." --- 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 06/02/21 5:49:15 AM #272: |
LinkPizza posted... Not to mention, with the amount of people who don't like or trust Ai/Robots, those places could end up with more business..."You have no proof of that." LinkPizza posted... And trust drops as more comes out, apparently...You have no proof that trend will continue. LinkPizza posted... Not everyone is going to fire people just because they could get a self-driving vehicle.You have no proof of that. LinkPizza posted... But people would just probably rather drive themselves."Probably" meaning you don't actually know. LinkPizza posted... You say numbers will rapidly drop on people disliking self-driving cars, but probably not.You have no proof of that. LinkPizza posted... Like the article said, many won't even get into them.Yes... because they're not common yet. I already explained this to you. Most people didn't think they would ever use a cell phone or a computer when those came out (hell, I never thought I'd own a cell phone in my life back in the early 90s). Many people thought online banking was risky (my father refused to use any digital payment service until about 10 years ago because he was worried about getting "hacked"). Those objections last until the initial pioneers show that the technology isn't remotely as unsafe or unreliable as the naysayers claim and people start to trust them. That is how it's worked in the past, that is how it will continue to work with self-driving cars. LinkPizza posted... Not only that, but I even showed an article that said people are getting less trusting as more comes out.Again, it's novel tech. New tech comes in three phases - the "new and mysterious phase" where trust is high because most people don't know about the tech enough to form an opinion, the "I don't trust it" phase where people's natural aversion to new things comes into play, and the "normalization" phase where people realize it's actually fine. We're in that second phase now. We see that with plenty of scientific advancements, from nuclear science to telephones (fun fact: telephones were once seen as hugely controversial because conservatives believed women would use them to cheat on their husbands when they weren't home) to wifi (anyone remember the "wifi causes cancer" nonsense?). --- 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 06/02/21 5:49:39 AM #273: |
LinkPizza posted... According to the research, as more come out, people will be even less trusting of automation...If that was true we'd be at negative trust right now, because automation has been happening for 150 years (and, from a technical standpoint, even longer). LinkPizza posted... 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...Yep - and the companies will, the same way they convinced them to buy cell phones and the internet and computers. LinkPizza posted... Which means I wasn't using the False Consensus Effect.When you say, "Everyone knows that..." you're using the False Consensus effect, whether or not you try to justify it with other statements. LinkPizza posted... But if it's true, then who cares. Because unlike you, I wasn't using the FCE.1) It isn't true, so you should care. 2) Cite a single time I've used FCE by claiming that everyone knows my argument is true. 3) "No, U!" counter is up to nine now. Will we hit double digits in the same post? LinkPizza posted... 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.Except... they didn't, unless you are using a definition of the word "most" that is unrelated to how the rest of the English-speaking world uses it. Then again, you used "literally" to mean the exact opposite of the definition of the word, so I guess I shouldn't put it past you... LinkPizza posted... 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.Dude, use that CTRL+F function on your keyboard and type "many people" or "most people" and see how often it shows up in your posts, often on subjects completely unrelated to the subject of self-driving cars. You are 100% applying your worldview to the general population and pretty regularly at that. LinkPizza posted... Having the convenience of being able to go wherever whenever is usually what people like...Which is entirely feasible even if you don't own a self-driving car but instead are part of a rental service. --- 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 06/02/21 5:50:16 AM #274: |
LinkPizza posted... 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.How the fuck am I supposed to make the connection between a random statement you made and something we were talking about "at one point"? There's definitely someone in this conversation who has a poor understanding of context clues, but it isn't me... LinkPizza posted... Shows enjoyment rather than dislike, which also had 2 options like liking it did...But no neutral option, which colours the responses. Without an option for "neither like nor dislike", the article is overstating the support for enjoyment, since "enjoy it a moderate amount" is the most neutral option on offer. LinkPizza posted... It only "scuppers" my point if you can't read.I like how you put the word "scuppers" in scare-quotes here as though it's some fancy word you hadn't seen before. LinkPizza posted... 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.Which displays, at best, a surface-level understanding of the subject, since you're simply regurgitating what someone else has said without bothering to dig down into understanding *why* it was said that way. LinkPizza posted... 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.https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/beat-ticket-book/chapter7-6.html https://www.fiix.io/car-advice/articles/can-you-get-ticketed-for-driving-slow Horses and buggies cannot keep up with the flow of traffic in most areas and, as such, would be considered illegal on most roadways. Only in those areas where traffic is already slow enough that a horse-and-buggy would not impede traffic would they be considered legal. Maybe learn the actual facts before accusing someone else of misinformation. LinkPizza posted... People would definitely riot over not being able to drive their cars."You have no proof of that" LinkPizza posted... They let people eat what they want when there are safer alternatives. They let people go unvaccinated, when that could harm others.Because there are circumstances when those alternatives would be more harmful than the safer options (e.g. food allergies, weak immune system); there is no such excuse for keeping manual cars in a world where self-driving cars are safer and more efficient. A car considered state-of-the-art 50 years ago would be unable to pass a safety inspection today without retrofitting because it does not contain several safety features that are now mandatory, such as seat belts. Self-driving status will one day be considered the same way. --- 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 06/02/21 5:50:42 AM #275: |
LinkPizza posted... But based on your stats, I'll be dead before they pass the law, anyway.What stats? I presented zero stats to do with the timing of this law. Unless you think, "This probably won't happen for decades" constitutes actual statistical analysis, which would actually explain a lot, come to think of it... LinkPizza posted... As long as I don't have to live in a dystopian future with a tyrannical government, I'll be fine.You won't, regardless of how fast automation happens. LinkPizza posted... For Zipcar, I use the word apparently because I personally haven't use them.Which kind of has the energy of, "I've never played [popular video game] but I hate it." LinkPizza posted... Idk what you mean by "Trumpian". Sounds like you just don't like facts.>Calls his own opinions "facts" >Wonders why he's being accused of being Trumpian For the record, you - like Trump - continually reference how "many people" agree or "most people" or "everybody" agrees with your viewpoint. He would do that all the time when he was trying to make an argument. LinkPizza posted... I heard it's only good if you use it like once a month or something."You heard", meaning you don't know. LinkPizza posted... 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."A review article you notably haven't cited. Regardless, this is an issue with pricing, not with the actual business model. I never said Zipcar was priced appropriately, merely that it was an example of how a self-driving rental service could work. LinkPizza posted... That said, I can't say it was good or successful. Just better than it is now.You can't say either of those things because you've never used it and just looked up a smattering of opinions online and tried to pass that for actual analysis. --- 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 06/02/21 5:51:17 AM #276: |
LinkPizza posted... Though, just because some Uber and Lyfts use self-driving, it doesn't mean all of them do.Both Uber and Lyft are intent on going completely self-driving once the technology becomes widespread. Their business-models depend on it. Are they there now? No. But I never said they were. LinkPizza posted... In that case, ride sharing or car ownership might be cheaper.Dude, "ride sharing" and "car subscription" are the exact same thing for self-driving cars. LinkPizza posted... Especially since after owning a car, you only pay for gas and upkeep.And parking. And cleaning. And repairs. And... LinkPizza posted... Upkeep can be more expensive, but that's normally if something goes wrong.This makes it sound like you don't actually own a car, because upkeep can be plenty expensive even if nothing goes wrong. The objective of upkeep is to catch problems *before* they turn into disasters. AAA/CAA recommends that a regular car user should budget $1000 to $1500 per year for maintenance and upkeep costs. That's about 5% of the value of an average car per year. LinkPizza posted... Plus, a car payment will eventually end. But the subscription keeps going.A car payment will eventually end, but maintenance and upkeep bills will not and those will progressively increase until you wind up replacing the car. At no point is car ownership "free". LinkPizza posted... So, it could be cheaper, but it might not be.By saying it "could" be cheaper, you've acknowledge I was correct. Yes, a greedy company can always make things more expensive, but that is true of car ownership and ride sharing as well. Thank you once again for admitting I was right. For the record, the original point here was that car subscriptions don't have the up-front costs of car ownership. Paying a subscription fee each month is cheaper than paying for a car loan, fuel, upkeep, and maintenance. Whether it is cost-effective in the long run depends on a number of variables, but widespread self-driving car subscriptions would remove a huge barrier to car access for portions of the population at or near the poverty line. LinkPizza posted... And I said they are having trouble affording them. I never said they couldn't, though. So, don't put words in my mouth.Then I'll say it for you - some people don't make enough money to afford a car. That is simple fact. Many of those people could manage if the up-front costs were lower, however, making a car subscription a far more tantalizing option. --- 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 06/02/21 5:52:05 AM #277: |
LinkPizza posted... And 11 years ago was still after the great recession ended.The effects of widespread unemployment and a stagnant economy were still absolutely in full force in 2010. Hell, unemployment was at its highest point in most western countries in that year. LinkPizza posted... And I know you hate personal anecdotes because they always go against you, but maybe read it before discounting it.No need - personal anecdotes are not statistically significant. And no, personal anecdotes don't always go against me, because I can easily put forward my own for every one you give. You say that you've never met a single person who would ride a self-driving car? I've met dozens. Hundreds. Nah, fuck it, I'll say I've met millions and every single one of them said they would use a self-driving car as soon as they could. Hey, my personal anecdote looks a lot more impressive than yours! Do you see why they're not exactly things you want being treated seriously in a debate yet? Your anecdotes are not relevant to this discussion, no matter how much you try and deny that truth. LinkPizza posted... But I'm sure you know that since you've been wrong a lot in out discussion...I will say that I don't have trouble spelling the word "our", so that apparently puts me ahead of you... LinkPizza posted... You assume self-driving car will be cheaper, but there's no basis for that.Sure there is - it's called basic economics. First of all, let's clarify that you once again deliberately misconstrued my argument here, because I said self driving cars were cheaper for transit/car-for-hire applications. Not that they were cheaper for ownership simply on the basis of the car itself. Yes, a self-driving car is almost assuredly going to be more expensive than a manual car to purchase and that will be true for a long time to come. However, while the self-driving car costs more up-front, it also replaces a driver that costs tens of thousands of dollars a year to employ. When comparing a self-driving car to a manual car, the self-driving model will pay for the difference in a commercial application in a couple of years. Add in an increase in service times (self-driving cars can work 24/7, 365 days a year with no breaks aside for fuelling and maintenance) and a reduction in accident rate and insurance costs and the cars are a net benefit to the company's bottom line. This is exactly what happened with factory automation. Yes, things like car-building robots are very expensive up front (to the tune of millions of dollars per unit) while replacing workers that don't have any up-front costs, but in the long run they are cost effective because the annual costs of maintenance/power/upkeep/depreciation are less than the wages of the worker it replaced over the life of the unit. If this were not the case, automation would not be done because it would be cheaper just to hire humans. Yet we know that modern manufacturing factories employ less than 10% of the workers they once did before robotic automation became widespread. LinkPizza posted... And if it's that expensive for a company to get them (and probably cost a pretty penny to maintain them"Probably", meaning you don't know. As self-driving cars are electric, they actually have lower maintenance costs than traditional vehicles because of fewer moving parts. LinkPizza posted... And before you say something weird likeNice strawman. Can you use a few more logical fallacies in your posts? I've almost got a double bingo on my card. LinkPizza posted... 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.You never stop paying for a car period, regardless of whether you're renting or owning. I already covered this above. The bill for a car is never zero, because fuel and upkeep are always a thing. --- 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 06/02/21 5:52:35 AM #278: |
LinkPizza posted... 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.Sounds like a problem with your car design. You should get a better one. LinkPizza posted... And not everywhere is full of cameras.Did you go into a business today? Congratulations, you almost certainly were on a security camera! LinkPizza posted... 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.Well, ignoring that I doubt the client base for self-driving cars is entirely horny teen-couples, I still fail to see the issue of sending a car in for cleaning and billing the teens' account appropriately if it is misused. You haven't really disproved anything here, just restated the original proposition that I already gave you the answer for. Pretty sure that most horny teens would pick somewhere more discreet for their romp if they knew there was a $500 cleaning bill waiting for them if they chose to fuck in the car. Suggesting the cars would need to be cleaned after every single ride is more than a little hyperbolic. LinkPizza posted... But I still agree with what I said earlierYou agree with yourself? What a shocker! LinkPizza posted... That's assuming It knows who the person is. People could easily make an account not using their real name.You act like it's not possible to verify someone's ID using photo ID or other specific information. LinkPizza posted... 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.Possible. And for the overwhelming majority of situations that don't fit into that extremely narrow hypothetical, there won't be an issue. When you have to concoct one of these ridiculously specific hypotheticals to prove your point, you're basically admitting that you're wrong and your complaints are just spurious naysaying for the purposes of being contrarian. LinkPizza posted... And literally everybody in the world needs one.Literally everybody in the world does not need one. --- 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 06/02/21 5:53:05 AM #279: |
LinkPizza posted... It that's you've been doing this whole time.Can you please post in English? I get tired of trying to make sense of your gibberish. LinkPizza posted... 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...Hey, speaking of deliberately twisting someone else's argument, you just completely misconstrued mine. Uber wanted automated cars solely for their company by 2020. I am saying that universal self-driving cars, with no human-driven cars on the road won't happen for decades. In no universe are those two things even close to the same thing. LinkPizza posted... 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.No, not "at once", because not all people travel at the same time. Anyone that was already in a car at peak hours will still be in the same number of cars now (minus drivers-for-hire, like cabbies or bus drivers, since they will have been replaced), but the difference is there will be fewer parked cars and those rush hour cars can go pick other people up and drive them around in off-hours. Self-driving cars also handle traffic more efficiently (a fully self-driving car force would have no need for traffic lights or signals, since they would just communicate their intent to other cars and use a neural network to assign turn spots to each car), which reduces the amount of time spent on the road, which more quickly frees up cars for other passengers. LinkPizza posted... Not to mention you would need extras for people needing rides.You already have that today - they're called "empty cabs/Ubers/bus seats". LinkPizza posted... And to be used when others are dirty.Which could be stored at a depot, so no additional road load. LinkPizza posted... But one difference is payment. Most people don't worrying about paying on their own property.You just spent several paragraphs earlier that things on the internet aren't free because you have to pay for the internet. That would mean that parking on your own property isn't free because you're paying for the property, meaning you're still paying for parking there as well. Admit you were wrong then or admit you're wrong here, because both cannot be true. LinkPizza posted... There are many differences, which is why is doesn't work for the "scenario" I put forth.What scenario? 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 06/02/21 5:53:39 AM #280: |
LinkPizza posted... And you say, "Not if renting is cheaper." But that depends on if renting is cheaper.No shit, that's literally exactly what I said. LinkPizza posted... From what I hear, that's not the reality for Zipcar.I wasn't talking about Zipcar, so this statement is meaningless. LinkPizza posted... And for owning, you only pay Until it's all paid for.I have disproved this three times already. Please stop saying it. LinkPizza posted... But I don't think the route has to be that direct. As long as you can get there, it should be fine.This is an inefficient solution to a problem that could more elegantly be solved with self-driving cars. Same with your later points about staying at length on a circuitous bus route instead of just going straight from your departure point to your destination in a car. LinkPizza posted... Transit isn't that inefficient for everyone.But it is for most of the world's population. If you live in a transit hub with an efficient transit system near to your chosen home, good for you; most of the world does not. LinkPizza posted... Even for me, they're like 3 or 4 in walking distance.Good for you. There are zero for me, which is the same number there were at the last place I lived. LinkPizza posted... More buses would mean less traffic...Only true if the buses were actually carrying a significant number of people. If the buses were nearly or completely empty, they are an obstruction because they - unlike self-driving cars which can go out of the way until they are needed - must continue to drive their route in case someone is waiting to be picked up. --- 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 06/02/21 5:54:12 AM #281: |
LinkPizza posted... 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.I'm pretty sure most people don't have cause to go to your BF's house, so bringing it up isn't relevant. As for country roads, you're not going to get transit out there either. Trust me, I've lived that life. LinkPizza posted... If it's not available for regular use, or still in testing phases and stuff like that, it's still future tech.It literally is not. Future tech is technology that has not yet been developed. That is the literal definition of the phrase. If you disagree, you are simply wrong. Period. LinkPizza posted... But I definitely grasp basic English knowledge better than you, so that's a plus...Your frankly atrocious grammar and rampant typos say otherwise. Seriously, learn how to use periods, commas, and ellipses properly because you mangle them throughout your posts. In a single post, you're putting periods where commas should be in a dozen different instances. This may actually be the most insulting thing you've said considering how awful your English is. LinkPizza posted... How would you teach it to do anything.There should be a question mark after this question, Mr. English Expert. I get that you don't know how machine learning works and apparently can't understand it well enough to see how something simple like the Sawyer bot works. I'll spare you the details but to simplify it to an extreme level, bots like Sawyer learn through trial-and-error. They observe a human doing a task and log what the successful end state should be. There are only so many ways to complete a task and, as such, they attempt various permutations and combinations until they strike upon the correct one, measuring whether each attempt is more or less successful than the last. If you can actually understand the applied programming and statistical modelling, it's actually quite fascinating material. Here, educate yourself. This is a decent starter tutorial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9OHn5ZF4Uo LinkPizza posted... Doesn't really look like it could learn anything.That observation says more about you than the bot. Seriously, learn about this shit before you start talking about it, because this is a really dumb statement to make. LinkPizza posted... . And they haven't even shown it had the capacity to learn anything other than saying it could.Then maybe look up more than one video on it? Here's a Sawyer that was taught how to make coffee samples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRSC2XZga98 Here's someone teaching a Baxter, which was an earlier model in the line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOkWuSCkRI LinkPizza posted... And depends on the space travel, it could be considered future tech.What depends on "the space travel"? 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 06/02/21 5:54:41 AM #282: |
LinkPizza posted... And again, in the "No U!" fits, I'll use it. And usually seems to fit.Largely because you don't have any other way to refute my points, especially since you plainly don't understand a lot of the terms I'm using and are trying to cover that by quickly looking them up and hoping you'll get it after browsing the first article you find. LinkPizza posted... Maybe you're just projecting a lot... Who knows...And right on cue there's the 10th "No, U!". This is actually kind of comical at this point - do you have actually have a debate strategy other than parroting your opponent's points back at them or are you just struggling because you know I'm right? LinkPizza posted... Some stores you can buy them include, iRobot, Best Buy, and even Bed, Bath, and Beyond. All of these places and more sell Roombas.The context of this discussion was an automated future, bright-eyes. Listing stores that sells them today when I explicitly asked about a "fully automated future" is a non-answer. You wouldn't be paying any of those places because none of them would have humans working for them anymore, if indeed they continued to exist at all. LinkPizza posted... Just because automation made them doesn't mean they be given to the stores for free.Except the stores wouldn't have reason to pay for them when they can just have their builder-bots make the Roombas themselves. ...and you wouldn't have reason to pay the store when you can have your own builder bot make the Roomba for you. I'm amazed you still struggle with a concept this simple. It really isn't that hard to understand. LinkPizza posted... Is this why your business failed?Dunno who you got your reading lessons from, but you should ask for a refund because your comprehension is awful. You're using past tense on a business that is still active and still successful. I don't make much money but that is not a failed business in my line of work. You make an awful lot of assumptions about something you know nothing about, but that's pretty much been par for the course for you on this topic. LinkPizza posted... Youtube isn't free. It's free for us."Youtube isn't free", he says, before admitting in the very next sentence that it is free for the user. LinkPizza posted... And I'm not adding the physical qualifying.The physical qualifying what? I can't honestly tell if this is a context problem, more of your awful grammar, or both. --- 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 06/02/21 5:55:55 AM #283: |
LinkPizza posted...Except no business line is fully automated yet, nor are they expected to be for quite some time, something that has already been explained to you several times. If you fail to understand it at this point, that's on you. LinkPizza posted...Except there is no such thing as a fully automated factory, because all factories still have human employees, even if they're just in management and sales. LinkPizza posted...I think I see your problem and it's that you don't have a very good grasp of English. LinkPizza posted...This would be true in a world where there was no such thing as competition. Shockingly, that is not the real world. LinkPizza posted...Which is still free. You can dance around that point all you like, but you can't deny the facts. LinkPizza posted...Which doesn't make the basic version "not free", it just means there are paid options available. LinkPizza posted...Unless you're using a free access point that is. Which, you know, is a thing that exists. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
darkknight109 06/02/21 5:56:45 AM #284: |
LinkPizza posted...Which is what I said - this stuff is free. You don't need to pay for it. All you're doing is admitting I'm right over and over and somehow not even realizing it. LinkPizza posted...I mean, in that case, yeah, Netflix (no capital F, Mr. English Expert) would be free for you. That's not the same thing as saying it was free for everyone, of course, but if Netflix hypothetically offered one month free to all its subscribers then yeah, Netflix would be free for that month even though Netflix itself is paying costs associated with that decision. You seem to struggle with understanding what the word "free" means, but given your English level in the rest of your post, that doesn't surprise me. LinkPizza posted..."You think" meaning you don't know. LinkPizza posted..."I'm not admitting you (should be "you're") right, I'm just taking refuge in my ignorance." Brilliant argument. LinkPizza posted...The fuck does this have to do with literally anything? LinkPizza posted... The fact that paid stuff also exists does not mean there isn't free stuff. At this point, I think you're just upset that you've been so thoroughly debunked on this point. LinkPizza posted...When I can show you literally tens of thousands of free games, that does not - by any meaningful metric - constitute a "rare" occurance. --- 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 06/02/21 5:57:59 AM #285: |
LinkPizza posted...Hey, another mangled sentence from the guy who insists he's good at speaking English. LinkPizza posted...The basic Roomba has not gone up in price. We've covered this at length already. LinkPizza posted...Nice save - is that also why you incorrectly used the plural form of "emphasis" in this quote? LinkPizza posted...Should be a question mark at the end of that sentence. Do you know what a question mark is? You don't seem to based on your posts. Anyways, why would you ask about growing plates? Who knows? It's far from the most bizarre thing you've said in this topic so far, so it honestly didn't strike me as all that unusual given its source. LinkPizza posted...Weird how only one of us is habitually making typos (including one at the end of this post) and doing it numerous times per post. Maybe you're just bad at this? LinkPizza posted...Which says more about your level of English knowledge than anything else if you're counting on a computer to tell you when you're making a grammar or spelling mistake (which is all kinds of ironic considering the subject of our discussion...) LinkPizza posted...None of which disproves the point that people can and do gather their own food for free. You can make your own bow and fletch your own arrows. You do not necessarily need someone else's services to hunt. It certainly makes it easier, but it isn't required. --- 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 06/02/21 5:58:54 AM #286: |
LinkPizza posted...Only if those robots weren't built by other robots. That's not an oversight, that's you once again forgetting what "fully automated future" means. LinkPizza posted...Again, you seem to have a striking lack of business acumen (maybe don't go to your mother for future lessons if this is any indication of what she imparted). Profits can still rise without profit margin changing if you sell more units. If Farmer Brown is suddenly able to undercut every other farmer in the area thanks to his automated workforce, he will enjoy increased profits even if his profit margin is unchanged from what it used to be. LinkPizza posted...I almost want to ask what you meant by this sentence, but I'm afraid I would learn a lot more about your personal tastes than I care to... LinkPizza posted...Unless it's produced by robots owned by the farm. LinkPizza posted...Unless it's synthesized by the robot vet using materials it harvested itself. LinkPizza posted...Unless it makes one for itself. LinkPizza posted...Unless you have another robot that will make them 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 06/02/21 5:59:38 AM #287: |
LinkPizza posted...You're thinking too small. What if everyone owns these robots? As in, it's not owned by one person or business but everyone has their own personal all-purpose robot that can fill whatever function is needed? Cook a steak? Build a desk? Give Fluffy a checkup? All doable using the same bot. It's not as far-fetched as you'd think. All you need is one bot built by an altruist that can build other bots like itself. Even if the corporate interests don't want it to happen, there just needs to be one self-replicating robot to collapse the entire system. LinkPizza posted...If it's the government (and it is - all subsurface rights belong to the government) they can and will absolutely give things away for free, because if they're the only ones with commercial power than money effectively becomes meaningless. Which, y'know, is what I've been saying for a while. LinkPizza posted...Watching a short tutorial on Go (that you've already admitted you don't remember the details of) and claiming you know how it works is a bit like me watching a video tutorial on sutures and claiming I'm now a surgeon. LinkPizza posted...Just like "any game", you say? Tell me, how do you play Go Fish defensively? What's your passive strategy for Solitaire? Do you prefer an offensive or defensive game when you're playing Snakes and Ladders? Please stop trying to talk about a game you clearly have no understanding of. Whatever tutorial you watched, it wasn't enough for you to meaningfully participate in this conversation. LinkPizza posted...Which isn't meaningful when there are literally more possible game combinations than there are atoms in the observable universe. LinkPizza posted..."Probably" meaning you don't actually know. Please, this is really getting sad at this point. You're trying to mix two things you have no practical knowledge of - Go and machine learning - and the results are coming off like a toddler trying to debate political science. Stick to subjects you actually have some knowledge of (or can at least believably fake competence at). LinkPizza posted...No computer in the world will ever be able to brute force a game of Go because it is literally impossible. There is not enough data in the universe to hold every single combination of Go. That was the point of this way back when we started this side tangent. If you don't understand that point, it simply means you don't understand big numbers. --- 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 06/02/21 6:00:37 AM #288: |
LinkPizza posted...Yeah, that's a great source... oh, wait, you didn't post anything. Does it still count as a typo when you flat-out don't post a link? Or are you going to give some other excuse for your poor post construction? LinkPizza posted..."You see them" meaning you don't actually know how this works. I'm not sure why you keep expecting me to buy in to your ill-informed hypotheticals when you're not even clear on how AI works and the fact that, at a high level that is still theoretical at the moment, it's no different than the human creative process (humans also "smoosh together" their experiences to make a video game). LinkPizza posted...This is rich considering how garbled your posts are. LinkPizza posted...You know, you really undercut your point about how your posts are totally legible (no, seriously!) by following it up with this incomprehensible garbage. LinkPizza posted...And I'm guessing half of them must be within your own posts. LinkPizza posted..."Making hypothesizing" isn't proper English. And yes, I'm absolutely hypothesizing. The difference is that my hypotheses are based on an understanding of how AI actually works, whereas you very clearly are basing yours on how you *think* they work based on a couple articles you've read. Come back to me when you've actually worked with a machine learning program. LinkPizza posted...Sure - on a timespan multiple orders of magnitude slower than AI, but they can do it. --- 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 06/02/21 6:01:14 AM #289: |
LinkPizza posted...This is one of the only alarmist things you've posted that actually has a ring of truth. There is a nonzero chance that AI will outgrow our ability to meaningfully control it and that is something that many significant roboticists are postulating as a risk that must be carefully managed as AI grows ever more advanced. LinkPizza posted.........and then you immediately undercut yourself by acting like the three laws are a real thing and not a literary convention written by a sci-fi author. LinkPizza posted...What stuff? 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...Everything I've said is already out is, indeed, already out. LinkPizza posted...Then you probably should have mentioned that with the sentence in question. And "everything" is a pretty wide variety of things, including tried-and-tested technology like car-building bots and ancient games like chess. LinkPizza posted...That sounds like you need to do some re-examining of your life, because that's not healthy. LinkPizza posted...Do you guys do any actual work at your jobsite? It doesn't sound like you do. I think I understand a bit better now why you don't want to be replaced given what your company apparently pays you for. --- 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 06/02/21 6:01:54 AM #290: |
LinkPizza posted...Most people don't have problem meeting friends outside of work. From the sounds of things, you're overestimating yourself. LinkPizza posted...Well, good luck with that with something like Nirvana. Or the Beatles. LinkPizza posted...You literally talked about having to consult with your BF because he knew music better than you. LinkPizza posted...You're assuming I started the business to make money. That is a false assumption on your part. Turning a profit is a nice bonus, but it's not the reason I started this business. LinkPizza posted...Then you more or less understand where I'm coming from. I live in a house on the ocean. My main job makes me enough money to live quite comfortably. I don't need this business to make millions. Hell, I don't really need it to turn a profit at all. I get satisfaction out of it unrelated to my bottom line because of the nature of the work in question. LinkPizza posted...Yes, I'd wager that I didn't learn as much from your Mom as you did, but given what you've posted elsewhere in the topic I think I'm richer for not having gone down that road. LinkPizza posted...No, you picked the junkyard specifically because it was a source for parts that specifically constrained your argument such that there was no other conclusion. It had nothing to do with building a machine yourself, out of parts you could readily acquire for cheap, or else there would be no reason to constrain it to junkyards specifically. You simply picked a part source that you knew could provide for a car but not a self-checkout without also entertaining cheap part sources that could provide for a self-checkout. --- 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 06/02/21 6:02:34 AM #291: |
LinkPizza posted...You were talking about building once of these devices yourself. You claimed you could build and maintain a car from spare parts but not a self-checkout. Nothing about that postulate states that parts *must* come from a junkyard. So yes, you are wrong and I believe you are well aware of that, especially as you've now admitted that you *can* build a self-checkout from a catalogue. Thanks for playing. LinkPizza posted...About what? Please provide context to your sentences or quote what you're responding to, because otherwise it's impossible to tell what you're talking about when you suddenly change subjects like this. LinkPizza posted...Assuming this is still your bizarre fantasy scenario about self-driving cars getting in a mass-swerve to avoid an obstacle, you have yet to explain how humans would perform better in the same situation and have, in fact, accepted several times that the exact same scenario would be just as likely to occur with human drivers, likely with a worse end result. In other words, even if we accept that this scenario could "easily" happen (it can't, unless you're using a very liberal definition of the word "easily"), it's not a mark against self-driving cars, since they would still perform better than human drivers in this scenario. LinkPizza posted...Yep - and you know what will bring that accident rate way down? Self-driving cars. LinkPizza posted...And nobody can know that there isn't a teapot in orbit around Earth. We can, however, make predictions based on the data we have, all of which suggests that self-driving cars will be orders of magnitude safer than humans, with amplifying effects the more self-driving cars are on the road. LinkPizza posted...They are out; they are better. This is simple fact. LinkPizza posted...Or the self-driving cars could usher in a utopia where no one ever dies in a car crash again. Both of those events are about equally likely. Which is to say, not at all, but continue to hide behind your, "It's still totally possible!" non-defence if it makes you feel better. --- 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 06/02/21 6:03:18 AM #292: |
LinkPizza posted...Compared to what? That's a pretty important qualifier. And which experts? LinkPizza posted...Hey, look, it's another one of these bizarrely tightly constrained hypotheticals teased to try and force a point. Again, if you have to put that many qualifiers on your hypothetical to make it actually run, you've lost the argument. LinkPizza posted...Which is a veritable impossibility given the number of cameras you're talking about. LinkPizza posted...All of which is just as true for a human driver in the same situation, so you haven't actually proven anything even if we accept this ridiculous hypothetical as valid. LinkPizza posted...Humans aren't perfect and we let them drive. So AI that aren't perfect but are better than humans (which they already are) are more than ready to drive. LinkPizza posted...Survivorship bias!! That's double-bingo!! LinkPizza posted...Better get cracking, then - you don't seem to have anything better to do with your time. LinkPizza posted... And trust me, my memory is much better than yours. Certainly doesn't seem like it. At the very least, given the quantity of typos and bad grammar in your posts, you don't seem to be very good at writing, which doesn't speak very highly of your mental acuity. --- 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 06/08/21 6:43:14 PM #293: |
https://i.imgur.com/9Xk9uDb.png
--- 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!
|
|
zebatov 06/09/21 12:06:37 AM #294: |
... Copied to Clipboard!
|
|
LinkPizza 06/17/21 7:42:11 AM #295: |
Still need more time...
--- 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 06/25/21 8:44:23 AM #296: |
One more bump should do it. And maybe Ill finish the reply
--- 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 07/02/21 1:40:25 PM #297: |
Next week, probably
--- 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 07/10/21 12:28:57 PM #298: |
Ive been pretty lazy and still only have a little over 25% of my reply done. But I did want to mention something. In case it takes a while for my reply. And that is that this is definitely not a formal setting. This is just a message board that lost topicality on a dying video game website. It is not a formal setting. Even this topic I only made because I wanted to share my opinion with the other topics of the same name. If you hadnt come into the topic, it probably would have died with the other ones Either way, as this is not a formal setting, I not using formal speech. Im typing how I normally do on this board In the end, its also my topic. And Im not making this formal at all If you want to pretend its a formal setting, go ahead. But its not So, I guess you get use to it
As for the rest of my reply, probably next week. It was 42 post. Its a lot. And I barely have time. That was 294 quotes (plus the extra quote in the last paragraph) But Ill eventually get to it That is all --- 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 07/20/21 6:14:39 PM #299: |
Ive been lazy these past weeks
--- 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!
|
|
mooreandrew58 07/20/21 6:25:51 PM #300: |
I definitely dont like the idea of cars driving themselves. Ive noticed I dont even like being a passenger in a car I guess I hate feeling like I dont have control of the situation
As far as a job goes in highly confident a robot won't be able to efficiently do my job before I retire. I do feel automation though will lead to even more fat lazy people. I cant even be bothered to exercise fortunately my job requires a bit of walking --- Cid- "looks like that overgrown lobster just got served!" Bartz-"with cheese biscuts AND mashed potatoes!" ... Copied to Clipboard!
|
| Topic List |
