|
A baby ate my dingo posted:This is only physical automation too, automating software and informational services is even easier and will cut into professional middle-class jobs. Exactly, a big part of my job is specifically to automate systems. In the years I've been working I've seen operations teams go from rooms full of people to just a handful for the same amount of workload.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:I dont think so. Cars still cant drive themselves and robots still fall over all the time. In order to automate jobs, we need to create robots that can be as flexible as humans and thats at least 50 years away, probably a lot longer. Maybe in 30 years we'll have cars that can drive in the rain but thats it. In the meantime, climate is getting worse and we're running out of valuable resources. Technology cant save us. We're going to take a huge step back this century, best case scenario. If your definition of "AI" is robots as flexible as humans, well... I don't know what to tell you. AI doesn't mean "human intelligence". It just means something that can perform beyond basic algorithms written by hand by humans. It's a thing that's been around for decades and it's advancing at an incredible pace. We already have cars that can drive in the rain, we already have robots that can learn, and we even already have robots that can walk around, but not a lot of investment is put in them because... well they're usually impractical. We could make human-like robots to work in warehouses, but that's pointless. We make little robots that drive around and pick up crates instead. Or vast networks of conveyor belts driven by massively complex software that manages an entire warehouse by itself. We could make a robot that sits at a computer and does clerical work, but that's stupid too. We make software that's highly advanced and targeted at a specific kind of task. This is not about climate change or scarce resources. Those are extremely important areas that humanity needs to put a ton of resources into, but they're tangential to automation. Automation can be applied to them in a variety of ways but mostly its just used for efficiency. It's cheaper, faster, and more reliable to automate tasks instead of hiring humans to do it. That's why we automate. You seem to be seriously depressed about climate change and resource scarcity. There are other threads for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 09:39
|
|
|
Taffer posted:This is not about climate change or scarce resources. Those are extremely important areas that humanity needs to put a ton of resources into, but they're tangential to automation. Automation can be applied to them in a variety of ways but mostly its just used for efficiency. It's cheaper, faster, and more reliable to automate tasks instead of hiring humans to do it. That's why we automate. Taffer posted:You seem to be seriously depressed about climate change and resource scarcity. There are other threads for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I dont think so. Cars still cant drive themselves and robots still fall over all the time. In order to automate jobs, we need to create robots that can be as flexible as humans and thats at least 50 years away, probably a lot longer. Maybe in 30 years we'll have cars that can drive in the rain but thats it. In the meantime, climate is getting worse and we're running out of valuable resources. Technology cant save us. We're going to take a huge step back this century, best case scenario. If robots equal to humans are 50 years away what happens with technology 60 years from now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If robots equal to humans are 50 years away what happens with technology 60 years from now? At the moment I think it's too hard to say, as we're nearing the end of the technological path we've been following for the past sixty years or so and transistors aren't going to get much smaller. We're dancing with either hitting a permanent wall of having to innovate with what we've got, as that is the end of what we can build, or something as world-altering as the first integrated circuit hitting the scene.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If robots equal to humans are 50 years away what happens with technology 60 years from now? He didn't say "equal to humans", he said "as flexible as humans".
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He didn't say "equal to humans", he said "as flexible as humans". Yeah, i'm not talking about robots that are as smart as humans. I'm talking about robots that can do most of the same work that humans can do. That requires dexterity and the ability to adapt quickly and improvize on the spot. Not "strong artificial intelligence" but just a robot that can, say, unload a truck and carry stuff to the proper place, make a sandwhich, fold clothes, move and rearrange furniture, all that stuff. Stuff that is very easy for humans (sight, navigating through a 3D environment, etc) that is still really hard for computers and robots. In 50 years, maybe we can have robots that can do some chores around the house, MAYBE. But actually being as smart as humans is centuries away, imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Rime posted:At the moment I think it's too hard to say, as we're nearing the end of the technological path we've been following for the past sixty years or so and transistors aren't going to get much smaller. There are multiple alternatives to traditional silicon transistors. They're not advanced to the point of widespread deployment but it's not like we're about to hit some wall that will halt advancement. Besides that, there is an absolute wealth of different paths of technological progress that don't hinge on smaller and faster processing power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
What I wanna know is when am I gonna be able to buy a wetware computer made from rat neurons that can play pong
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He didn't say "equal to humans", he said "as flexible as humans". Blue Star posted:Yeah, i'm not talking about robots that are as smart as humans. I'm talking about robots that can do most of the same work that humans can do. That requires dexterity and the ability to adapt quickly and improvize on the spot. Not "strong artificial intelligence" but just a robot that can, say, unload a truck and carry stuff to the proper place, make a sandwhich, fold clothes, move and rearrange furniture, all that stuff. Stuff that is very easy for humans (sight, navigating through a 3D environment, etc) that is still really hard for computers and robots. In 50 years, maybe we can have robots that can do some chores around the house, MAYBE. But actually being as smart as humans is centuries away, imo. That's the thing though, we don't need robots to be as flexible as humans, or even be able to do the same thing as humans. You're really misunderstanding how physical automation is implemented in an industrial setting, it's not about replicating the process that a human carries out, it's about achieving the same end result.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Yeah, i'm not talking about robots that are as smart as humans. I'm talking about robots that can do most of the same work that humans can do. That requires dexterity and the ability to adapt quickly and improvize on the spot. Not "strong artificial intelligence" but just a robot that can, say, unload a truck and carry stuff to the proper place, make a sandwhich, fold clothes, move and rearrange furniture, all that stuff. Stuff that is very easy for humans (sight, navigating through a 3D environment, etc) that is still really hard for computers and robots. In 50 years, maybe we can have robots that can do some chores around the house, MAYBE. But actually being as smart as humans is centuries away, imo. Not trying to be rude, but I don't think you really understand what we're talking about when it comes to "robots" and automation. No single robot needs to do all of those tasks. If you really want to automate the loading and unloading of trucks, for example, you just build a system designed to accomplish that one task. Your system probably isn't going to be a robot that actually picks boxes up and carries them around, because why would you want that? We only move things that way because that's how humans work and, up until very recently, everything had to be done by humans. Here's an actual automated loading bay to demonstrate what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdpjuWfG2D4 Logistics is ground zero for a lot of automation at the moment, so there's plenty of stuff like this out there. The thing to understand is that if a task is difficult for robots then we can just change the task to make it easier. As long as the end result is the same (ie, unloading and storing something in a warehouse for later retrieval) it doesn't matter if we drastically change the steps to make automation easier. If you're building your warehouse from the ground up to be automated then you can build the workflow entirely around the automated systems that you're using. Part of the problem with this discussion is that people scoff at the idea of a robot being smart enough to do their job, but the reality is that the robot (or software system) that replaces you will probably be dumb as dirt. Paradoxish fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
This is a reply to a post that has not been made yet: - Sorry. Computers are more creative than humans. Creativity is not only not unique to humans, but machines are better. You can actually program a factory that build cars so each car is different, with different byzarro gothic painting and weird forms added. It would only need a procedural algorithm. Every car would end looking like a space ship in warhammer 40.000. Or if you want, it can make cars looks like something made by aliens or that has been born, instead of create. What computers are not good at, is originality, but creativity is easy to turn into a algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 10:59
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Maybe I'm mixing him up with someone else, but I think it's the same dude who uses the climate change thread as a personal E/N thread. In which case, the "other threads for that" should really be in E/N. Nope, that's me. I stopped, though. I do agree that climate change is going to make most of this discussion most, though. Robots need power and resources.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Yeah, i'm not talking about robots that are as smart as humans. I'm talking about robots that can do most of the same work that humans can do. That requires dexterity and the ability to adapt quickly and improvize on the spot. Not "strong artificial intelligence" but just a robot that can, say, unload a truck and carry stuff to the proper place, make a sandwhich, fold clothes, move and rearrange furniture, all that stuff. Stuff that is very easy for humans (sight, navigating through a 3D environment, etc) that is still really hard for computers and robots. In 50 years, maybe we can have robots that can do some chores around the house, MAYBE. But actually being as smart as humans is centuries away, imo. How about you go read up on this poo poo and then come back vomiting words.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
A baby ate my dingo posted:That's the thing though, we don't need robots to be as flexible as humans, or even be able to do the same thing as humans. You're really misunderstanding how physical automation is implemented in an industrial setting, it's not about replicating the process that a human carries out, it's about achieving the same end result. More to the point, robots don't need to replace humans entirely. If a certain job requires ten tasks to be completed, and a machine is installed that automates away just one of those ten tasks, you've decreased the total manpower required for that job by 10%. We're not going to have totally-automated McDonalds that can carry out the entire food production chain from start to finish without human intervention, but automation can make significant cuts to the required staffing at each McDonalds. Historically, that was no problem because the decreased manpower requirements would lead to expanding the business and opening more physical locations, but the fundamental nature of both our economy and new automation have shifted such that that's no longer necessarily the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:More to the point, robots don't need to replace humans entirely. If a certain job requires ten tasks to be completed, and a machine is installed that automates away just one of those ten tasks, you've decreased the total manpower required for that job by 10%. We're not going to have totally-automated McDonalds that can carry out the entire food production chain from start to finish without human intervention, but automation can make significant cuts to the required staffing at each McDonalds. Historically, that was no problem because the decreased manpower requirements would lead to expanding the business and opening more physical locations, but the fundamental nature of both our economy and new automation have shifted such that that's no longer necessarily the case. Well said, I think people forget where the Great Depression's unemployment level peaked: 25%. You don't need to put that many people out of work before the structure of society breaks down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Logistics is ground zero for a lot of automation at the moment, so there's plenty of stuff like this out there. The thing to understand is that if a task is difficult for robots then we can just change the task to make it easier. As long as the end result is the same (ie, unloading and storing something in a warehouse for later retrieval) it doesn't matter if we drastically change the steps to make automation easier. If you're building your warehouse from the ground up to be automated then you can build the workflow entirely around the automated systems that you're using. It's not just the warehouses, it's everything. The marine terminals, the ships, the cranes, gates, clerking, trucking, the paperwork, the load planning, all of it. There is a heavy emphasis on systems level thought, in the education of the next set of transportation managers. We are being trained to design the logistics systems around the anticipated technologies. Now this is going to take forever of course, most of these people getting this education don't have a background that lends itself to systems design thought. The industry is also entrenchedly conservative (in the sense of let's do it in the way that has always worked). But it's coming, the sheer scope of money to be saved and made will ensure that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's not just the warehouses, it's everything. The marine terminals, the ships, the cranes, gates, clerking, trucking, the paperwork, the load planning, all of it. There is a heavy emphasis on systems level thought, in the education of the next set of transportation managers. We are being trained to design the logistics systems around the anticipated technologies. Nah, agvs have been driving around containers for 25 years now. Unmanned cranes are already a thing. Port automation is already here. It is not a conservative industry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Fun fact: One of the major early snags was seagulls who figured out the agvs had collision detection. They didn't move and could stop the whole system until the bird got hungry or bored enough to fly away. The port eventually changed the agvs to ignore objects smaller than a man. A few birds died, but the system worked fine after that.
you feelin fucky fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:So you're saying we should ignore the data and just assume it's going to be bad? Raising the standard of living in the world is the solution to all the problems you seem to think are unsolvable. The data shows that violence, population growth and every other metric that matters becomes better as the standard of living improves(access to healthcare, housing, food etc). I'm saying that even your best case scenario is bad. Let's assume that high levels of development result in lowered violence and slightly sub replacement fertility. We cannot sustainably support 7.5 billion people living at what we consider a high level of development. To compound the problem, high levels of development result in increased lifespans. Most developed countries have, until very recently, had increasing populations in spite of declining fertility. (This is why I think fertility rates don't tell the whole story, and you have to look at birth vs death rates.) People don't magically stop consuming resources once they pass child bearing age. This means that, even in your most optimistic scenario, you have several generations adding to the already hosed population term of the equation before things even begin to stabilize. A billion Chinese bootstrapping themselves from an agrarian economy to a modern consumer economy constituted one of the greatest ecological catastrophes of the last century, and your best case scenario is, "let's do that several more times and hope it makes things OK."
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
you feelin fucky posted:Nah, agvs have been driving around containers for 25 years now. Unmanned cranes are already a thing. Port automation is already here. It is not a conservative industry. They aren't a thing in most of the US. Europe, the Middle East, and Asia are a world ahead. I can talk specifics about a large number of the most important US terminals if you'd like?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
And to illustrate how the us is a different world, on the bulk side of things I've been to grain terminals where the spouts were controlled by teams of men with ropes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
It's okay guys, we won't be replaced by machines, we will be the machines. http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/27/15077864/elon-musk-neuralink-brain-computer-interface-ai-cyborgs "SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk is backing a brain-computer interface venture called Neuralink, according to The Wall Street Journal. The company, which is still in the earliest stages of existence and has no public presence whatsoever, is centered on creating devices that can be implanted in the human brain, with the eventual purpose of helping human beings merge with software and keep pace with advancements in artificial intelligence. These enhancements could improve memory or allow for more direct interfacing with computing devices. "
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
^^^ Yess finally, somebody is working to bring us into the cyberpunk future we've been promised. BrandorKP posted:And to illustrate how the us is a different world, on the bulk side of things I've been to grain terminals where the spouts were controlled by teams of men with ropes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CWzjsCn6Do https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKZDgsni0Y4
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 09:00
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:They aren't a thing in most of the US. I've never been involved with US ports so I'll take your word for it. In europe education is ironically more conservative than the ports themselves because the actual innovators in the industry keep their cards very close to their chest for competitive reasons. But yeah, some terminals have automated cranes, agvs, automated routine maintenance for agvs and automated stacking. The next big thing is automating the hinterland connections with self-driving trucks. What's keeping the robots down over there? Unions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:And to illustrate how the us is a different world, on the bulk side of things I've been to grain terminals where the spouts were controlled by teams of men with ropes. Please tell me they sing sea shanties as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:We cannot sustainably support 7.5 billion people living at what we consider a high level of development.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A billion Chinese bootstrapping themselves from an agrarian economy to a modern consumer economy constituted one of the greatest ecological catastrophes of the last century, and your best case scenario is, "let's do that several more times and hope it makes things OK." They are, however, further along in fixing that than we are considering their 5 year plan is to ditch coal and go full nuclear and renewables.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm saying that even your best case scenario is bad. Let's assume that high levels of development result in lowered violence and slightly sub replacement fertility. We cannot sustainably support 7.5 billion people living at what we consider a high level of development. Can't we? Most of our resource problems are issues of allocation and distribution, not availability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:In 50 years, maybe we can have robots that can do some chores around the house, MAYBE. But actually being as smart as humans is centuries away, imo. Umm, we already have them now? You know, washing machines, dishwashers, garbage disposals, Roombas etc? We also have plenty of instant food, like hot pockets and TV dinners, made in highly automated plants. I know it's not as exciting as having your own Rosie the Robot, but automation already does many household tasks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Can't we? Most of our resource problems are issues of allocation and distribution, not availability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
I don't see why not. If poor economies are able to take advantage of the emerging sustainable tech to develop, they could massively increase the efficiency and effectiveness without depleting all the resources. Of course that's a big "if" and there might be some bottlenecks like water availability in Africa or what not, but in general, I'd say it's very possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:At developed world levels? I know famine and poo poo is just a question of distribution, but what if everyone is trying to get say, a German lifestyle? In any case, what is true today in this regard might not be true in a few decades, given the challenges associated with climate change and the possible shift in resource use that might force. We can only extrapolate from comparable changes in history. History shows us that automation and other advances in technology (improved crop yields, hydroponics, etc) have only improved availability and reduced costs with massive surpluses. I don't see any reason to believe there's an upper limit, it's not like we're anywhere close to running out of ways to produce goods, it's only getting better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:We can only extrapolate from comparable changes in history. History shows us that automation and other advances in technology (improved crop yields, hydroponics, etc) have only improved availability and reduced costs with massive surpluses. I don't see any reason to believe there's an upper limit, it's not like we're anywhere close to running out of ways to produce goods, it's only getting better. As long as you ignore the ecosystems that support this system to begin with, sure, no reason it could ever end!
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Eh, I think we can, with some adjustments. What do you see as the fundamental problems with doing so? The first step to answering this question is going to be to define what's meant by a "high level of development." The answer is going to be a lot different depending on whether we're simply talking about living in a technologically advanced, recognizably modern society or if we're specifically using the term to refer to western, consumer-driven lifestyles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
you feelin fucky posted:Please tell me they sing sea shanties as well. No, but they will throw wrenches (big goddamn ones think over 2" sized) if they think one is a scab. I on the other hand will sing sea shanties. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...szZItnzQt4fcrqQ Here's the short explanation of what is going on on some of these old bulk terminals. You have a piece of capital equipment. It's long ago been paid off, has fully depriciated on the books, can't be sold for anything other than scrap (it might actually cost a great deal of money to scrap, maybe asbestos or something else). But the maintenance is not horrific yet, you have labor that might keep it running indefinately. Every now and then markets workout where you can gouge the hell out of someone by firing it up. Alternately everything else around you has failed and you're the only reasonable place to pickup a backhaul load. On the container side, I think it is mostly that we don't have strong port authorities in most places in the us. The carriers have the upper hand in negotiations. Terminals don't like to spend money on automation if an alliance will gently caress them over come contract negotiations. They then blame this on labor, because you know it can't possibly be our fault. The places in the US where it's less terrible and there is actual progress have well run, state run, port authorities. Oddly enough that's often in deeply red areas.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:At developed world levels? I know famine and poo poo is just a question of distribution, but what if everyone is trying to get say, a German lifestyle? In any case, what is true today in this regard might not be true in a few decades, given the challenges associated with climate change and the possible shift in resource use that might force. Sure, why not? If there are any fundamental limitations that we're likely to hit anytime soon, they're based on our economic systems (which encourage large amounts of pointless waste) rather than sheer population pressure. Over a third of the US food supply ends up in landfills as food waste, and many of the US's regional water problems stem from cost-cutting or trying to maintain lush green lawns in the middle of a loving desert.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
The amount of water that's used to water lawns pales in comparison to agricultural water usage, which as you might imagine, has quite an impact on food availability and pricing
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
call to action posted:As long as you ignore the ecosystems that support this system to begin with, sure, no reason it could ever end! Yeah, if you imagine a scenario where there's unbridled consumption in the world you'd be right. However, you could look at the data and see that you're wrong. Agricultural land and water usage is lower than ever and falling while production is higher than ever and growing. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-in-agriculture/ But maybe you're just fear mongering for no reason with no data to back up what you're saying. Technology and automation is good for the world and humanity, and there's nothing that shows we can't sustain our current population or significantly more especially as technology progresses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:13 |
|
|
I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure land use extent and total gallons of water consumed aren't exactly great indicators for the health of the environment, nor its ability to sustain anything in the future. I get that you believe it's an unqualified social good that Chinese pigs are smashed tighter than ever before as they're loaded with antibiotics of last resort, but to me, that's not a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 20:58
|
|