|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It just seems bonkers to worry about what job you would have after some claimed singularity. It seems like some guy from the 800s seeing a vision of 2017 and just not being able to understand how he'd water his crops if he lived in new york city no matter how many times someone points out almost no one is a farmer he just won't have crops probably. That as things change life restructures. This has nothing to do with the singularity. Artificially reproducing human intelligence has nothing to do with that. It's already reality today, in very limited form like image recognition or language processing. And yeah, it will absolutely change everything. That's my whole point. You can't extrapolate the effects of automation into infinity. This entire process WILL stop one day and our entire way of life will have to drastically change as a result. You and me are just arguing about when that is going to happen. Rastor posted:You don't think a world where human and digital intelligences labor as partners will have new jobs? I'm not sure what that means. What kind of incentive does the free market provide for capital owners to accommodate inefficiencies like human labor in a business? The only time I have seen this happen is when workers are protected by law. But these protections are getting dismantled at an increasingly faster rate in every developed country, so they are going to be useless very soon. Seriously, when have you seen a business give out a charity jobs to a person? If you are talking about some post free market utopian vision, then consider that the overwhelming majority of people on earth are already living in absolute poverty today and none of the capital owners really give a poo poo about it. A couple hundred million more from the developed world slowly joining this impoverished majority won't change a thing. Capital feels nothing. A substantial chunk of western society has been getting increasingly poorer for the last decades and capital has not reacted to this in any way except for trying to accelerate the process.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:I'm not sure what that means. What kind of incentive does the free market provide for capital owners to accommodate inefficiencies like human labor in a business? The only time I have seen this happen is when workers are protected by law. But these protections are getting dismantled at an increasingly faster rate in every developed country, so they are going to be useless very soon. Seriously, when have you seen a business give out a charity jobs to a person? Okay, but just think this out a few more steps. Once a program you can download off of kazaa is a better and more effective CEO or stock trader or whatever than any dude possible what exactly makes the rich guy rich? What is he rich in? Dollars? Who does he give the dollars to? What does he buy and who does he buy it from? Who is he getting the dollars from? Is the richest guy on earth gonna be the guy that literally owns the most factories? Who gives him money to run the factories? Who does he sell to? What does he buy with the money except other robot made goods. Like money based capitalism as a concept is so long dead by the time we get to anything ultimate automation. The concept of money itself vanishes when labor stops being a thing. Any "rich person" would need to be rich on some other axis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
It's not about numerical wealth, it's about power. The elites of today will be able to leverage today's wealth into power and influence over the automated utopia of tomorrow. We're not going to go from what we have now to instant robot butler space communism, there will be a painful intermediate period where all the really useful patents and technologies will be careful hoarded by multinationals; you seem to think everyone will have access to ai powered super 3d printers but the earliest adopters of any given technology are always the wealthy and powerful for what I hope are obvious reasons. Extrapolate from there. You seem to be correlating the end of current society with the end of human nature. Google and others are already on the inside track to this. I have no loving idea how speech recognition ai works but Google can rent it to me in exchange for my metadata and personal info. They're doing exactly what I've described above, leveraging their wealth into what they perceive will be the mechanism of power in the future. People aren't going to rise up and grass roots create their own smart phones and the associated giant network of disparate technologies necessary to make smart phones worthwhile. Slavvy fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:It's not about numerical wealth, it's about power. The elites of today will be able to leverage today's wealth into power and influence over the automated utopia of tomorrow. We're not going to go from what we have now to instant robot butler space communism, there will be a painful intermediate period where all the really useful patents and technologies will be careful hoarded by multinationals; you seem to think everyone will have access to ai powered super 3d printers but the earliest adopters of any given technology are always the wealthy and powerful for what I hope are obvious reasons. Extrapolate from there. Like, all powerful god kings existed before we even had invented iron. The existence or lack of any specific technology seems to have no real link to "evil people might take over" because that is a thing that has happened on and off throughout history across a bunch of cultures across all levels of technology. If forklifts or dudes or AIs drive the fork lift doesn't seem like an issue that ties in at all on if the current royalty is going to be nice or mean to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Ok I see. No the problem is you've missed the uncounted times when goons get bizarrely angry about, and invested in arguing about, self driving cars. To the point where it just results in massive idiotic debates about one of the less significant automation technologies as far as impact on society goes. Which is why nobody wants to talk about them. Umm, self-driving autos are going to be one of the biggest shocks to the labor market in a very long time once mature. Like a huge shock. There are a lot of average people out there (mainly men) that make their daily bread driving freight vehicles to and fro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
I an thinking of doing a robotics online degree but I can't help but wonder: "Is this going to help if/when climate change collapses society?" Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I an thinking of doing a robotics online degree but I can't help but wonder: "Is this going to help if/when climate change collapses society?" Thoughts? loving get therapy
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
It will probably give you useful skills to let you avoid various purges, so yeah, go for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like, all powerful god kings existed before we even had invented iron. Are you kidding? The reason the royalty need the poors is to do all the boring manual labour stuff. What do you think happens to all the poor people when they're no longer needed because robots do it instead? Do you think we'll transition to a post scarcity utopia out of kindness? TyroneGoldstein posted:Umm, self-driving autos are going to be one of the biggest shocks to the labor market in a very long time once mature. Like a huge shock. There are a lot of average people out there (mainly men) that make their daily bread driving freight vehicles to and fro.* *: In America
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Are you kidding? The reason the royalty need the poors is to do all the boring manual labour stuff. What do you think happens to all the poor people when they're no longer needed because robots do it instead? Do you think we'll transition to a post scarcity utopia out of kindness? ** Everywhere, but especially not in America 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, but just think this out a few more steps. Once a program you can download off of kazaa is a better and more effective CEO or stock trader or whatever than any dude possible what exactly makes the rich guy rich? What is he rich in? Dollars? Who does he give the dollars to? What does he buy and who does he buy it from? Who is he getting the dollars from? You might just as well ask yourself what makes a millionaire Brazillian luxury good factory owner rich today. His factories produce goods that are sold all across the world to other globally rich people. They pay him in money for his goods and he uses that money to buy goods and services from other capital owners all across the world(expensive cars from German capital owners, expensive jewelry from Italian capital owners, etc.) None of this involves the millions of impoverished Brazilian people living in favelas in any way. Or the hundreds of millions of impoverished people in Sub-Saharan Africa. They live in totally separate realities that don't intersect. The Brazillian millionaires also live in gated communities, in other countries or are protected by private security forces. They are not even threatened by violence anymore. If something goes wrong, they can just hop on a private plane and go live somewhere else in the world. So, what makes a machine owner in a fully automated society rich? He lives in a huge, secure villa, has a yacht and nice cars. His children go to an excellent school. He has access to the best medicine. A poor person has none of that. Why should automated machines produce anything for that poor person? What can a poor, uneducated person give back to the machine owners that would compensate for that expense in resources? Right now the machine owners NEED his labor, but in a fully automated society they don't need anything from him, like you don't need anything from an African subsistence farmer today. Also, what makes the rich rich is the legal ownership of means of production. Now you might say that everyone can go just online and buy a share in BMW(and its know-how, factories, patents, etc.), but that's not true. A person earning an average wage in Nigeria will never, ever be able to do that, even if they save money for their entire life. The (globally) poor are forever excluded from ever owning means of production and nobody gives a poo poo about it. Most of the time we in the West aren't even aware of their existence, completely absorbed with our own lives and problems. If the trend of falling incomes in the west continues, more and more of us will just silently join these billions of already impoverished people as an invisible underclass. And the remaining global rich people will not even be aware of it and continue living their lives like nothing happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Why should automated machines produce anything for that poor person? What can a poor, uneducated person give back to the machine owners that would compensate for that expense in resources? Right now the machine owners NEED his labor, but in a fully automated society they don't need anything from him, like you don't need anything from an African subsistence farmer today. Okay, but flip the question. Once the automated machine that takes no talent or education or labor to run and can be bought and maintained for less than 9 dollars an hour and can be built anywhere because no one needs to commute there regularly why does anyone need the factory owner? What happens to the hedge fund manager when everything he does can be done objectively better by a spreadsheet and no CEO makes half the profit as a company directed by watson. Like is the rich guy going to just tell us he's rich and we all go along with it? What if someone writes a program that is just "10 own factory 20 goto 10"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Nobody 'needs' a factory owner you knob, he'll just own the company which owns the rights and means to produce said robot and thus can price it's usage however he likes. You seem to think that this technology will inevitably and naturally flow through to the poor but that never, ever happens unless there's a profit to be made. And in this case there isn't. e: phone posting Slavvy fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Dec 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, but flip the question. Once the automated machine that takes no talent or education or labor to run and can be bought and maintained for less than 9 dollars an hour and can be built anywhere because no one needs to commute there regularly why does anyone need the factory owner? What happens to the hedge fund manager when everything he does can be done objectively better by a spreadsheet and no CEO makes half the profit as a company directed by watson. Nobody needs the factory owner. Everything he does, if he even does anything at all, can be performed by a worker. The factory owner is a useless parasite. For example, shareholders are generally not involved in the day to day operations of large corporations. They don't add anything to it. Welcome to Marxism 101  The question is why are there factory owners and the answer is complicated. The short version is that we can't get rid of them that easily. It's like cutting out a huge tumor straight out of the brain. Half the time the patient dies too.The hedge fond manager becomes poor if his job is automated away and he can't find a new one. If he has capital saved up, he can be part of the rich in the new society. quote:Like is the rich guy going to just tell us he's rich and we all go along with it? What if someone writes a program that is just "10 own factory 20 goto 10"? Yeah, that's how western societies are organized. Law enforcement protects property. If anyone tries to take something from a factory who is not authorized by the owners, he'll get the taser and prison time. We all go along with it. It's an absurd premise, but here we are. A trust fund kid who hasn't worked a single day in his life and contributes nothing to society gets to decide things. We all go along with it. If that trust fund kid is the owner of a fully automated factory, we all go along with it. The alternative would be fighting the automated police, army and mercenaries. Also, probably lots of minefields. And we don't even have tanks, MAPADS or demining equipment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:We all go along with it. It's an absurd premise, but here we are. A trust fund kid who hasn't worked a single day in his life and contributes nothing to society gets to decide things. We all go along with it. If that trust fund kid is the owner of a fully automated factory, we all go along with it. The alternative would be fighting the automated police, army and mercenaries. Also, probably lots of minefields. And we don't even have tanks, MAPADS or demining equipment. Full Communism Before the Rich Develop Robot Guards!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
I mean, you might as well be asking why the rich 1% nation's aren't trickling down their wealth and tech to the 99% rest of the world's populace now, with the exception of the places that get exploited for cheap labor and a relatively few token charity efforts. The situation you describe as inconceivable is the reality now, it's just the predictions are 99% of the current 1% will get to fall into the untermenchen class as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
In a way it'll be even worse. Currently the poors in first world nations have some influence on the rich through voting, which is backed by the potential for industrial action and civil disobedience which lead to a loss in productivity. When that leverage is lost the vast majority of people will simply be pests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I mean, you might as well be asking why the rich 1% nation's aren't trickling down their wealth and tech to the 99% rest of the world's populace now Yeah, I would ask that. Why am I able to type this on a computer? Why didn't the elite keep all the computers for themselves if that was a thing the elite do? Like think how much powerful the rich would be if they were the only ones allowed to have cars? Or books? or cell phones? Or iron? When running a whole factory costs less than just hiring a guy at minimum wage what is going to keep that such perfectly elite technology that only the most elite of the elite can even touch it's products?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Yeah, I would ask that. Why am I able to type this on a computer? Why didn't the elite keep all the computers for themselves if that was a thing the elite do? Like think how much powerful the rich would be if they were the only ones allowed to have cars? Or books? or cell phones? Or iron? Since you're not getting it, here's a hint: if you live in the US, a Commonwealth country, Western Europe, Japan or the ROK, you're one of the rich global 1% elite.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Raspberry Jam It In Me posted:Nobody needs the factory owner. Everything he does, if he even does anything at all, can be performed by a worker. The factory owner is a useless parasite. So in the future the factory won't need any workers and also won't need any owners and no one will have a job so they can't buy any products but somehow capitalism will still function otherwise exactly like it does now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:Since you're not getting it, here's a hint: if you live in the US, a Commonwealth country, Western Europe, Japan or the ROK, you're one of the rich global 1% elite. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm Apparently even 30% of africa has internet now. Why did the rich let that happen? Why didn't the rich protect their treasure better?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
I don't understand how discussion moved to a literal sci-fi future where AGI exists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Baronash posted:I don't understand how discussion moved to a literal sci-fi future where AGI exists. At least in the 60s the robots were going to rise us and kill us in revenge for slavery and in the 80s they were going to start a nuclear war. It's super tragic the modern millennial concern about the robot apocalypse is that it might capitalism too good and make them unemployable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's super tragic the modern millennial concern about the robot apocalypse is that it might capitalism too good and make them unemployable. Do you only have 2 modes? *Discussing automation far on the horizon* "This innovation will make the world so different that capitalism won't exist anymore!" *Discussing automation that is at the door* "This isn't an innovation, we've been doing things just like that forever!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Do you only have 2 modes? That seems about right. The last thousand years at least have been a bunch of smooth curves of things changing bit by bit technologically where every technology is built on only stuff that already exists but still railroads people to be living in an almost unimaginably reshaped world over time by the small one at a time shifts. Any one change is gonna mostly leave us a system that is basically like the system we have now but with one thing changed, add a bunch of small changes and the underlying system is changed too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
That is just patently untrue, the last 200 years have seen that gradual curve turn into a sharply steepening ramp that shows no signs of slowing down. Our political and social systems are already unable to cope and are getting less and less effective with each passing year as technological progress accelerated while social and political advancement slows to a deadlocked crawl. Your approach seems to be that we would not worry about it and just let poo poo happen despite the fact that the dystopia we live in now is the direct product of such thinking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:That seems about right. The last thousand years at least have been a bunch of smooth curves of things changing bit by bit technologically where every technology is built on only stuff that already exists but still railroads people to be living in an almost unimaginably reshaped world over time by the small one at a time shifts. It's a completely useless stance when involved in a discussion thread about anything prospective. It's also wrong-headed, now that we're in a situation where technology allows automation to occur rapidly and without a significant investment in infrastructure. I mean, Uber and the stampede of me-toos in every service industry are automation, and they are doing their damnedest to depress wages under the guise of "contracted work."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:
Is today a dystopian world in any way the rest of history isn’t?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:That is just patently untrue, the last 200 years have seen that gradual curve turn into a sharply steepening ramp that shows no signs of slowing down. Our political and social systems are already unable to cope and are getting less and less effective with each passing year as technological progress accelerated while social and political advancement slows to a deadlocked crawl. What is your definition of "dystopia"? Even with all the bad poo poo happening in the world we have less crime, less hunger, less of every conceivable negative metric possible. Everything is improving over time, despite the rapid movement towards development and automation. More people than ever have access to clean water, housing, the internet, information, everything is better now than it was 20 years ago. Automation's only real impact is the proliferation of useless poo poo in the world (plastic doodads etc.), which is of course a real problem, but it hasn't turned society or politics into anything worse than it was in the past. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Dec 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Is today a dystopian world in any way the rest of history isn’t? The rest of history didn't have a situation where corporations and banks effectively own every facet of us and our lives, where politics is striding rapidly backward while technology sprints forward and the earth is literally transforming into an uninhabitable wasteland and nobody can be bothered doing anything about it because it costs too much. But yes lets have a definition slapfight instead of focusing on the point I was trying to make: that sitting back and just letting poo poo develop is a good way to gently caress over everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The rest of history didn't have a situation where corporations and banks effectively own every facet of us and our lives, where politics is striding rapidly backward while technology sprints forward and the earth is literally transforming into an uninhabitable wasteland and nobody can be bothered doing anything about it because it costs too much. But yes lets have a definition slapfight instead of focusing on the point I was trying to make: that sitting back and just letting poo poo develop is a good way to gently caress over everyone. To say nothing of the nuclear Sword of Damocles that still hangs over our heads, and how it means if another major confrontation is ever kicked off this will very quickly go from being one of the most peaceful and prosperous eras in human history to the worst cataclysm to befall the human race in its entire history and ensure what's left of mankind can never rebuild to our current level of civilization again, thus ensuring perpetual destitution and suffering for however long our descendants last. But yeah, long as nothing ever goes wrong again ever, trend is just peachy if you ignore the multinational corporations and climate change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What is your definition of "dystopia"? Even with all the bad poo poo happening in the world we have less crime, less hunger, less of every conceivable negative metric possible. Everything is improving over time, despite the rapid movement towards development and automation. More people than ever have access to clean water, housing, the internet, information, everything is better now than it was 20 years ago. You can definitely call many aspects of the modern developed world dystopian. For example, Spain has a youth unemployment rate of 40%, most western countries have a rapidly aging and collapsing population, a mentally retarded and ultra-corrupt reality TV star is president of the most powerful country on earth, 40% of the working population in Germany has seen their net wages decrease over the last decades, the world is going through a massive climate change process, the environment is irreversibly damaged and going through a mass extinction, etc. We just don't notice these because humans are fantastic at normalizing things. I still think that modern advancements are a net benefit overall, but that doesn't make the negative side effects any better. Not everything is purely good or bad. Dynamite was a great boon for tunnel construction but it also killed a couple million people in useless wars. Electrification, modern medicine and the green revolution are great things, but they also brought us industrialized warfare, massive greenhouse gas emissions, etc. Also, you are again extrapolating into infinity. Just because past developments have been net-positives over time doesn't automatically mean that all developments are always going to be net-positive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:What is your definition of "dystopia"? Even with all the bad poo poo happening in the world we have less crime, less hunger, less of every conceivable negative metric possible. Everything is improving over time, despite the rapid movement towards development and automation. More people than ever have access to clean water, housing, the internet, information, everything is better now than it was 20 years ago. Africans are drowning in thousands in the Mediterranean trying to reach Europe. They have shoes and shirts and pants and can afford (after selling everything they own) the trip to Libya so they are according to metrics richer than their ancestors and yet they're more desperate. With the population boom there and climate change destroying more and more land, this trend is likely to accelerate. Nigeria and Pakistan together have almost half a billion people. I wonder what work will all those people do while we wait for this just post-capitalist system that hasn't even begun to take even the most vague form. This isn't all the fault of automation but I'm giving you information that opposes your rosy "Everything is improving over time" view. And that's not even getting into pollution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
its pretty funny that european capitalists classify things like pants as wealth when they're really more of a burden to people in warm climates
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 10:13
|
|
|
The worst thing about these doomsayers is that they just can’t see the flaw in their argument, they think employment is paramount to a functioning society.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The worst thing about these doomsayers is that they just can’t see the flaw in their argument, they think employment is paramount to a functioning society. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Former DILF posted:its pretty funny that european capitalists classify things like pants as wealth when they're really more of a burden to people in warm climates Pants are a tool of capitalist oppression.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:The worst thing about these doomsayers is that they just can’t see the flaw in their argument, they think employment is paramount to a functioning society. Well it's been so far, hasn't it? I'll welcome employment-free society with open arms if somebody shows me how's it supposed to work and how we're going to get there. So far nobody came even close. In the mean time, I'll stick to an argument that might be flawed rather than wishful thinking, which is your response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:Well it's been so far, hasn't it? I'll welcome employment-free society with open arms if somebody shows me how's it supposed to work and how we're going to get there. So far nobody came even close. No one has come close to showing the exact details on how they are going to automate the jobs either. All parts of talking about any future that is anything but exactly like the exact way it is right now always involves some level of thinking people in the future will figure out things collectively that people in the present don't really know yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
AceOfFlames posted:I an thinking of doing a robotics online degree but I can't help but wonder: "Is this going to help if/when climate change collapses society?" Thoughts? Mozi posted:It will probably give you useful skills to let you avoid various purges, so yeah, go for it. yeah, the elite enclaves will be in need of people to build and maintain the automated deathbots guarding the perimeter, I say go for it
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 18:43
|
|
