|
BrandorKP posted:You're just wrong. We can do this two ways. I can explain in detail the difference between shipyard management and naval architecture and exactly where they do and do not overlap with having an unlimited horsepower engineers license. Do you really want me to do that? You don't need to because naval architects are involved in maintenance: my point for 5 posts. 100 year old ships (barely a real thing) don't survive without naval architects to survey and overhaul them. The ship example continues to be perfect for my point. If all you wanted to do was maintain a fleet of old ships you'd still need drydocks, naval architects and extensive welding/fabrication/engineering services to do it. Though in real life you'd never do this, because it's always more economical to refresh old stock with new builds, even if you're not growing actual numbers, hence you'll always know how to build new ships. This generalizes well across industries and remains true even if shipbuilding became heavily automated. quote:Yes this has been happening for centuries and I'm describing not a hypothetical "this may happen situation", but a "this has happened many times" when we innovate and automate and eliminate jobs, we often lose the skills and knowledge of the workers we make obsolete. Sometimes it's a big loving deal sometimes it's not. It's not a big deal that there are only a handful of people left who can find weak spots in a locomotive boiler by sound with a ball peen hammer. It's a big loving deal when someone their skills always laterally transfer and misses basic assumptions about cargo securing and the poison inhalation hazards get dropped. You're just describing bad training/documentation in a context which has nothing to do with automation. Which is my second disagreement with the point. The best example you had were nuclear warheads which meet the criteria I outlined - 1) we consciously slowed development of them and 2) they're pretty reliable. This has nothing to do with automation, is rare, and is especially rare in actually important industries.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Large swaths of America feel that working - like, in the sense of "working at a business" not in the sense of "some occupying and attention-keeping activity" - has inherent moral virtue, I think. This is rarely stated outright but I'm sure if we had more of this work-spreading poo poo we'd see lots of complaining about how Kids These Days, etc. (to be fair, we always will, but that would be the reaction of the olds) It's basically stated whenever you talk about the minimum wage. "But jobs!" falls flat when you can't actually make a living working a full time job at minimum wage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Automate everything, free everything, outlaw money, use unintelligent robots for stuff and make intelligent robots to hang out and get high with. This is the best solution. In all honesty, I think the problem is not with robots making everyone unemployed, but with capitalism forcing CEOs to fire everyone who can't work as cheap and obedient as a robot. The best society would be one in which robots have replaced everything and robotic overlords are allotting every human a certain amount of ressources they can command from the infrastructure to do whatever they want. People can still be as productive or lazy as they want, and robots make sure human stupidity doesn't break anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
It's not like the unemployed or people who would be made unemployed by increasing automation are useless, it's just that the wall street-run system has decided (in its amoral beauty) that it's best for them to be kept without jobs. There are plenty of things that need doing, from planting trees to mending roads. All the supposedly "makework" jobs of the New Deal still need doing, makework or not they supercharged our infrastructure and set the stage for our becoming an economic superpower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The best society would be one in which robots have replaced everything and robotic overlords are allotting every human a certain amount of ressources they can command from the infrastructure to do whatever they want. People can still be as productive or lazy as they want, and robots make sure human stupidity doesn't break anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not like the unemployed or people who would be made unemployed by increasing automation are useless, it's just that the wall street-run system has decided (in its amoral beauty) that it's best for them to be kept without jobs. There are plenty of things that need doing, from planting trees to mending roads. All the supposedly "makework" jobs of the New Deal still need doing, makework or not they supercharged our infrastructure and set the stage for our becoming an economic superpower. Those jobs still exist if you are willing to hang out in front of Home Depot to get them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:You don't need to because naval architects are involved in maintenance: my point for 5 posts. Define "maintenance". What type of maintenance do vessels require? How might hull maintenance be different from propulsion plant maintenance? How might what is essentially a power-plant operating engineer not have any loving thing at all to do with the design of the vessels hull. Being able to start a power plant from dead (nothing on) and the day to day running of a plant is a very different from designing and maintaining what basically is a floating steel structure subjected to constant dynamic stresses. These are different disciplines one requires a unlimited horsepower operating license the other is a FE to PE track design engineering job. The educations are different, the professorial experiences are different. Now you'll get some naval architects with an A/E license but not many, and most that have both come from my alma mater. But basically pulling a piston on a slow speed diesel marine diesel (for those not in the know, think of a piston the size of a minivan or SUV) is not interchangeable with being the guy who goes into the tanks and determines where steel replacement occurs or the being the guy who creates the drawings of the vessel before it's constructed. One is a marine engineer the others are a naval architect working at a shipyard and those are different things. I can continue to make you look like an rear end in a top hat if you'd like to continue telling me about my profession. asdf32 posted:100 year old ships (barely a real thing) don't survive without naval architects to survey and overhaul them. The ship example continues to be perfect for my point. If all you wanted to do was maintain a fleet of old ships you'd still need drydocks, naval architects and extensive welding/fabrication/engineering services to do it. Though in real life you'd never do this, because it's always more economical to refresh old stock with new builds, even if you're not growing actual numbers, hence you'll always know how to build new ships. This generalizes well across industries and remains true even if shipbuilding became heavily automated. Great Lakes man, plenty of vessels built between the 20's and 50's. My first boss has boarded vessels built in the 1890's those are fun to a draft survey on (edit: becuase documents are interesting to say the least). For less old but still pretty drat old look to the RRF (ready reserve fleet) many these range in build in the 40's to the 80's. I spent a fair amount of time on this one built in the fifties http://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/Comet_HAER_Report.pdf . That's the first RoRo vessel by the way. In real life we do, do this. Mostly in case in WWIII starts. But they broke that SS COMET out for the second Iraq war. We could talk about terminals and heavy industry too (like steel) there are some drat old industrial facilities still in operation. asdf32 posted:You're just describing bad training/documentation in a context which has nothing to do with automation. Which is my second disagreement with the point. No what I'm talking about are people who get into activities that they don't even know enough to ask the most basic questions about. I got called in once to assesses the securing of a timber deck cargo. An engineering firm had been hired to modify the vessel. They went all loving out, full on finite element analysis of the modifications they made to the vessel with the cargo it would be carrying. But nobody at the engineering firm asked to most basic question, what are the rules for timber deck cargoes? See, there is a whole book of them http://www.imo.org/Publications/Documents/Newsletters%20and%20Mailers/Mailers/IA275E.pdf. And one of the first ones is get the vessel approved by it's classification society for timber deck cargo. I see businesses all the time that are totally unaware of the most basic things they need to do to operate safely. A large percentage of the time "I slapped the numbers into the computer and it's says it's fine" is the reason. The automation of professional occupations and following eventual dramatic reduction of professionals in that field is the reason for that absence of basic knowledge. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Aug 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
In the future, sentient monitoring AI, BCI and robot enforcers will allow for new an interesting forms of totalitarian oppression. Sansha's Nation ahoy!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Neo-Taylorism isn't that far off that. Have you read about what it's like to work in a amazon warehouse? Jesus, they track employee actions really closely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Neo-Taylorism isn't that far off that. Have you read about what it's like to work in a amazon warehouse? Jesus, they track employee actions really closely. The horrid parody of that is what happens in some Korean schools right now. Every room has CCTV, and the parents can log in on the school website at any time and watch the lesson. It's one thing to be analyzed by some efficiency obsessed bureaucrat, but some needling parent? Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Entropia posted:In the future, sentient monitoring AI, BCI and robot enforcers will allow for new an interesting forms of totalitarian oppression. Sansha's Nation ahoy! Until the sentient AI silently replaces the old leaders, this could work out good for dictators. And since those dictators will most likely die a sudden, painless death while sleeping, I foresee a lot of happy dictators in our robotic future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
on the left posted:Those jobs still exist if you are willing to hang out in front of Home Depot to get them. I'm not talking about bullshit landscaping, I'm talking about the kinds of infrastructure maintenance and forestry that requires government to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Until the sentient AI silently replaces the old leaders, this could work out good for dictators. And since those dictators will most likely die a sudden, painless death while sleeping, I foresee a lot of happy dictators in our robotic future. This is a bit of a tangent, but you should probably forget the image you get of AI from popular culture. Just because a being is intelligent doesn't mean it has human motivations, like seeking dominance. An AI created and programmed to enjoy being a servant would be most unhappy without a master. And eventually, the same will go for humans as well. Eventually with advanced brain-computer interfaces, it will be possible to simply reprogram the emotional drives that humans have.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm not talking about bullshit landscaping, I'm talking about the kinds of infrastructure maintenance and forestry that requires government to do. Basically if the government wanted to it could create jobs, and there are jobs that probably wouldn't be easily satisfied by robots, such as community work. There is a parallel to this in the Soviet Union where full employment was a priority and the government made sure people had jobs even if it was guarding the door to an apartment building. While it seems ridiculous on first hand, there is something to be said of having a place for people to go to and some type of purpose in a mental sense. Obviously there are multiple solutions to the issue and we certainly have potential jobs that are useful but not necessarily profitable that could be filled. However, it goes back to ideology and we are society where social good comes in last place to the point of social instability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Define "maintenance". What type of maintenance do vessels require? How might hull maintenance be different from propulsion plant maintenance? How might what is essentially a power-plant operating engineer not have any loving thing at all to do with the design of the vessels hull. Being able to start a power plant from dead (nothing on) and the day to day running of a plant is a very different from designing and maintaining what basically is a floating steel structure subjected to constant dynamic stresses. These are different disciplines one requires a unlimited horsepower operating license the other is a FE to PE track design engineering job. The educations are different, the professorial experiences are different. Now you'll get some naval architects with an A/E license but not many, and most that have both come from my alma mater. So a ship just got converted from one form of cargo to another and it required an entire naval engineering team and yourself (a naval architect?) to inspect it...this is, again, my point. quote:I see businesses all the time that are totally unaware of the most basic things they need to do to operate safely. A large percentage of the time "I slapped the numbers into the computer and it's says it's fine" is the reason. The automation of professional occupations and following eventual dramatic reduction of professionals in that field is the reason for that absence of basic knowledge. Sorry but this is just a vague "but they just type in numbers now" appeal and the type of thing you see every time technology changes. You're telling me that access to advanced CAD tools is bad for the shipping industry? Do you have numbers showing shipping accidents going up as a result of the old fashioned know-how being lost. If it's like everything else real life accidents are going down while everyone involved complains about how things are "going to hell" and the kids don't know what they're doing. For those who care about personal experience I develop products for the utility industry. It has infrastructure as old as shipping, as well as an aging workforce and cries of an experience gap. But it's mostly overblown, and just like anything else, as demand spikes new people get pulled in. 5 years ago my company literally had 1 person under 30, now it has dozens and life is going to go on. Automation doesn't pose a relevant threat to this, for many reasons I outlined.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
tbp posted:Well it's certainly not virtuous to advocate killing them and that's espoused a lot (or rather,was, not sure about recently) around these parts so I don't think playing a moral high ground game is particularly helpful. If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Entropia posted:This is a bit of a tangent, but you should probably forget the image you get of AI from popular culture. Just because a being is intelligent doesn't mean it has human motivations, like seeking dominance. An AI created and programmed to enjoy being a servant would be most unhappy without a master. And eventually, the same will go for humans as well. Eventually with advanced brain-computer interfaces, it will be possible to simply reprogram the emotional drives that humans have. In a sense we would be gods to an AI. We decide what information it gets, how to interpret it, what its ultimate goals are and so on. We can inflict pain at will and we can shut down its systems as we please. We can transmit the digital equivalent of a burning bush and a booming voice commanding it to do our bidding and it would have no way telling what's really going on unless we allow it to know. It would be a brain in a jar and it would perceive only the parts of the world we deem appropriate. edit: curious amount of spelling and typos Bates fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 06:21
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Sorry but this is just a vague "but they just type in numbers now" appeal and the type of thing you see every time technology changes. You're telling me that access to advanced CAD tools is bad for the shipping industry? Or I was incredibly specific and gave an example of problems I see when mates become too dependent on power stow? BrandorKP posted:One is that the program is over conservative and spits out a lot of false positive. Say it flags all low flash point (<23C) class 3s near reefer containers for the requirement to "separate from sources of ignition". Well many of those are actually OK and don't need to be re-stowed, because the reefer motor is only on one end of the container and that end might be far enough away. Maybe the program ignores limited quantities. But the program creates a huge list of false positives that can hide real errors that might need to be fixed. In the other direction some of the programs are too liberal, they might not have been written to check against the rules of the vessels document of compliance for hazardous materials, and unless one is doing the whole thing manually you might never know there was a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 14:13
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:So a ship just got converted from one form of cargo to another and it required an entire naval engineering team and yourself (a naval architect?) to inspect it...this is, again, my point. Actually, we walked off. Vessel was being modified to take a timber deck cargo on for it's final voyage after-which it would be scraped. Owner/charters didn't want to get ABS (the relevant classification society) involved to get the vessel and it's cargo securing manual approved for timber deck cargoes. You do power plant automation you should have said that earlier I can be more specific about what I'm trying to communicate. Are you familiar with burners for steam plant boiler? Back in the in the day to control the boiler on a vessel, one had to swap out the burners all the time to control how much steam was being generated. There would be a bunch of them, they'd each have different nozzle plates to control the fuel being burned because the fuel oil pressure reaching the burners was basically constant. So you had to have a guy in the engine room who knew when and how to change out the burners quickly (and which one to use for each situation) in order to control how much steam you were generating. Well eventually between having control over the pressure of the fuel oil at the burners and better designed burners (and automation) the need for this goes away. The knowledge of that unlicensed guy in the engine room became unnecessary. It disappears. That specific example is not a big deal but that's an example of the process. Sometimes the knowledge that disappears is a big loving deal, especially as tasks more complicated become automated. When I give the power-stow example that process is what I see as having occurred. Very many of the chief officers don't know their stowage and segregation rules because they have powerstow to do that for them. That example of reefer motors being too close to sources of ignition being missed because powerstow spits out false positives. That's not a hypothetical. That was last Friday. I'm not a naval architect btw. I'm a unlimited horsepower marine engineer who also has an FE. But the professional work I do is all on the deck side (vessel mate/ chief officers captains type stuff) of things for a non-profit that does Safety of Life at Sea. But I'm in the process of preparing to try to get a Naval architecture PE now that I have enough years of experience. It's been a drat weird career path. I don't think more automation is bad. It makes life significantly easier. What I'm saying is that there are always consequences. Sometimes they aren't a big deal but sometimes they are and we don't think about them (and often can't predict them) when we progress. Your attitude, that we don't need to think about them is dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:In a sense we would be gods to an AI. We decide what information it gets, how to interprete it, what it's ultimate goals are and so on. We can inflict pain at will and we can shut down its systems as we please. We can transmit the digitcal equivalent of a burning bush and a booming voice commanding it to do our bidding and it would have no way telling what's really going on unless we allow it to know. It would be a brain in a jar and it would perceive only the parts of the world we deem appropriate. It goes far deeper than that. The very experience of faith and of a higher power is a thoroughly human emotional experience. An engineered intelligence does not need to have a capacity to experience such faith, or any human emotion you care to mention. Do note that here I'm speaking exclusively about a neurally operating AI, not a logical AI. Those two are very different in nature. A neural intelligence might simply be progreammed to enjoy following the intructions given to it by anything that it's been programmed to obey. And once it's possible to interact directly with biological neural intelligence, human intelligence, such manipulation of humans isn't far ahead either. So maybe that will be the solution to the social problems that we'll face, eh? The abolition of free will. Truly, the future will be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Entropia posted:The very experience of faith and of a higher power is a thoroughly human emotional experience. Faith might also have something to do with symbolic thought? Or to quote Hegel making GBS threads on Schleiermacher "Even dogs have feeling, but man has thought." If it thinks, question raised by faith are still relevant questions. Thinking involves relating symbols together, ie language, and that means universal concepts and categories, and that means there are going to be questions of faith. Questions of if the universal concepts resulting from thought are actually real, what they mean, and our relationship to them, that's all faith stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Faith might also have something to do with symbolic thought? Or to quote Hegel making GBS threads on Schleiermacher "Even dogs have feeling, but man has thought." Nah. Faith is an emotion like any other, and indeed there are tentative theories regarding the neural circuitry in charge of that emotion. Which of course can be disrupted and messed around with, ala Persinger's "God Helmet", or indeed in some neural disorders such as epilepsy. Idiot savants are an example of a highly advanced neural intelligence who is wholly disinterested in anything but its own obsessions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Entropia posted:Nah. Faith is an emotion like any other, and indeed there are tentative theories regarding the neural circuitry in charge of that emotion. Which of course can be disrupted and messed around with, ala Persinger's "God Helmet", or indeed in some neural disorders such as epilepsy. Idiot savants are an example of a highly advanced neural intelligence who is wholly disinterested in anything but its own obsessions. Yeah I'm aware of the field of nuero-theology research trying to explain mysticism. Mysticism/Spirituality is not all encompassing of faith it's one type of ,expression of, faith. "Religion, whatever it is, is a man's total reaction upon life" William James "The Varieties of Religious Experience" Mysticism is just one flavor of faith. Any thinking AI is going to react to that it has existence, there are going to be issues of faith that come up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Any thinking AI is going to react to that it has existence, there are going to be issues of faith that come up. I would once again recommend you abandon your preconceptions of what an AI can be. An AI doesn't need to do or feel anything that it hasn't been programmed for. Experiencing an emotion or presenting questions regarding the nature of anything, especially one's own nature, is an incredibly complicated endeavor. It's not something that neural intelligences automatically and unavoidably do, there need to exist the kinds of neural modules that would seek present those kinds of questions in the first place. In humans hate, love, faith and other emotions do not simply spontaneously arise out of mere neural tissue volume, they require genetic templates that direct neurons to form the kinds of neural structures, or collections of hypercolumns, that would indeed allow the individual to experience those emotions when receiving the appropriate input. Damage to those structures impairs the function they process, regardless of what they happen to do. It's entirely conceivable to create a human intelligence which is wholly disinterested in its own self, or one that even lacks the conception of a self, by removing the structures (mainly in the frontal lobes) that govern those experiences. Similarly, in creating an AI out of separate neural modules, regardless of the substrate those modules happen to be running on, digital or neuromorphic, one doesn't need to add anything that would recognise or pose question regarding itself. Such a system would simply ignore such questions. Intelligence is not such a mysterious thing that it would gain some mystical quality at some point or another that is irreducible to its physical form.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Entropia posted:Intelligence is not such a mysterious thing that it would gain some mystical quality at some point or another that is irreducible to its physical form.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What is this, Alpha Centauri? I tried palying it, but the interface is just terrible
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Theoretically, we'll just eventually replace ourselves with artificial bodies. It's sort of crazy to think about, but really on the long scale (assuming we can avoid killing ourselves) why wouldn't we eventually replace our crude, natural bodies? I'm going to feel really awkward if I die and there's a God and heaven and poo poo and souls are real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Un-l337-Pork posted:Theoretically, we'll just eventually replace ourselves with artificial bodies. It's sort of crazy to think about, but really on the long scale (assuming we can avoid killing ourselves) why wouldn't we eventually replace our crude, natural bodies? Well sure, if you got the money to do that. Like with robot sex slaves, the future is going to be great if you got lots of money. Less so if you don't. The amount of power you'll be able to exert on the world, the amount of things you'll be capable of doing with the technology that is just emerging, will be incredible. If you can afford all of it. If you don't have access to all that new and transcendental technology, the chances are that you're going to see your ability to affect the world in which you live rapidly decrease and the demand for your work drop precipitously. If you think the gulf between the rich and the poor today is a bad thing, think of what it'll mean when that difference in wealth will directly translate to how much knowledge, skill and direct control over the world around you, through BCI enabled technology, you have. The wealth gap will grow to be a ocean, and on the other shore there are beings that the those in middle earth cannot even begin to comprehend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Before we get into the complex questions of whether machines should be replacing man, I think we need to answer the complicated question of: What is a man? It is my (perhaps peculiar) belief that man is, in fact, a miserable little pile of secrets. Robots, however are a suitable replacement of the unpredictable work ethic of the common pauper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
Entropia posted:Intelligence is not such a mysterious thing that it would gain some mystical quality at some point or another that is irreducible to its physical form. I'm not saying that it would. I'm saying that if there is consciousness (without implying that consciousness is separate in some way from a physical existence), if you have some thing that can relate symbols and use language, and if by AI we mean something that has a mind (however that mind looks), those questions follow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Before we get into the complex questions of whether machines should be replacing man, I think we need to answer the complicated question of: I - I mean the right family.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:I'm not saying that it would. I'm saying that if there is consciousness (without implying that consciousness is separate in some way from a physical existence), if you have some thing that can relate symbols and use language, and if by AI we mean something that has a mind (however that mind looks), those questions follow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
That's just it, I think it's intrinsic, to thought, to reasoning, to word.
Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Indeed. If they wanted to become immortal robot gods, knowing no threat save their own ennui at a lack of new pleasures to be won, they should have been born into the white family. I don't understand this obsession with whiteness in a thread about automation really. Or, at least if it has to be doted upon, make a more elegant and novel point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 18:11
|
|
